Are Big Changes Yet To Come?: July 2017

ARE BIG CHANGES YET TO COME?
BASELINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TARA ON

COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION IN DILIJAN, TATEV
AND TUMANYAN
July 2017
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was
prepared independently by the CRRC-Armenia Foundation.
ARE BIG CHANGES YET
TO COME?
BASELINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TARA ON
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION IN DILIJAN, TATEV AND
TUMANYAN
The report was prepared by the CRRC-Armenia Foundation.
Research team members under supervision of Heghine Manasyan:

Tigran Matosyan
Sona Balasanyan
Naira Vardanyan
Mariam Arakelyan
Susanna Karapetyan
CRRC-Armenia is grateful to Rasa Kent, Arthur Drampian, Bella Markarian and Kristina Sargsyan and
other experts from USAID/Armenia for coordination, guidance and valuable advice, to expert
Armen Varosyan for his expertise at the first stage of the evaluation, as well as to CFOA experts
Vahan Movsisyan and Vahram Shahbazyan for constructive advice.
Thanks to Arsen Aslanyan for his input in development of the questionnaire and other evaluation
tools. And finally, thanks to Jessica Injaian, a native English speaker (Birthright Armenia) volunteer at
the CRRC-Armenia for days of proofreading of this report and related materials.
The cover photo was taken by fieldwork staff member Rafik Nazaryan in the Tumanyan community
during a physical verification activity.
July 2017
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
2
CONTENTS
BASELINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TARA ON COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION IN
DILIJAN, TATEV AND TUMANYAN.................................................................................................... 1
I. ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ 4
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 5
III. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................... 8
IV. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 10
HOUSEHOLD (HH) SURVEY: SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATIONS, FORMULA AND
JUSTIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 11
KNOWN LIMITATIONS TO THE DESIGN ............................................................................... 14
RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING OF EVALUATION FIELDWORK TEAM ............................ 17
DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION ............................................ 19
DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: THE BACKGROUND OF CONSOLIDATION IN
DILIJAN, TUMANYAN AND TATEV..................................................................................... 23
THE IDEA OF CONSOLIDATION ............................................................................................. 23
THE NEW BUDGETS OF DILIJAN, TATEV AND TUMANYAN .............................................. 24
USAID’S SUPPORT TO CONSOLIDATION .............................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 2. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES AFTER
CONSOLIDATION ..................................................................................................................... 32
ROADS ......................................................................................................................................... 32
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................... 34
STREET LIGHTING ...................................................................................................................... 35
SANITARY CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 35
HEALTHCARE .............................................................................................................................. 36
PRE-SCHOOL AND EXTRACURRICULAR EDUCATION ....................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3. CIVIC INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL SELF-GOVERNANCE ..................... 41
PARTICIPATING IN COMMUNITY LIFE, CONTACTING LSG REPRESENTATIVES .............. 41
RESPONDING TO CITIZENS’ VOICES ...................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 4. CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS AND AWARENESS OF LSG .......................... 46
PUBLIC TRUST, TRANSPARENCY AND THE IMPACT OF LSGS ........................................... 46
AWARENESS OF LSG ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................. 49
CHAPTER 5. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION
REFORMS ....................................................................................................................................... 51
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 55
ANNEX 1: FDG GUIDE ............................................................................................................... 57
ANNEX 2: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE .................................................................. 66
ANNEX 3: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 71
ANNEX 4: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................... 73
ANNEX 5: PHYSICAL VERIFICATION CARD ........................................................................... 89
ANNEX 6: RANDOM WALK PROTOCOL ............................................................................... 91
ANNEX 7: LOCAL PLEBISCITES IN THE COMMUNITIES OF DILIJAN, TATEV, AND
TUMANYAN ................................................................................................................................ 95
ANNEX 8. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS ...... 96
ANNEX 9: BUDGET BREAKDOWN: DILIJAN, TATEV, TUMANYAN .................................... 98
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... 107
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... 108
3
I. ACRONYMS
AMD Armenian Dram
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ATDF Armenian Territorial Development Fund
CELoG Civic Engagement in Local Governance
CRRC Caucasus Research Resource Centre
CSO Civil Society Organization
CSV Comma Separated Values
CV Curriculum Vitae
DK Don’t Know
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GOAM Government of Armenia
HH Household
HR Human Resource
LSG Local Self Government
ODK Online Data Kit
PMDI Program Manager for Data Initiative
PPS Proportional to Size
PPT Power Point File format/extension
RA Republic of Armenia
SPSS Statistical Package For Social Sciences
TARA Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia
TBD To Be Determined
USAID United States Agency for International Development
XLSForm Filename Extension (Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet File)
4
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT BACKGROUND
One and a half years have passed since the emergence of first consolidated pilot
communities of Dilijan, Tumanyan, and Tatev within the Territorial and Administrative
Reform of Armenia (TARA). Community consolidation, as its initiators have been stating,
aims to enhance the capacities and performance of local self-government bodies, improve
the quality of local public services, and encourage public participation, as well as
transparency and accountability of local authorities.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provides assistance to
the Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) territorial reform through a Government to
Government (G2G) agreement. This G2G, implemented by the Armenian Territorial
Development Fund (ATDF) provides economic development funding needed to support the
GOAM in demonstrating the benefits of TARA in newly consolidated municipalities,
including: (a) increased access to financial resources to successfully undertake priority
municipal development projects, and (b) increased capacity to: (i) use participatory,
community-led decision making processes; (ii) adopt more effective and efficient systems
and procedures for managing municipal assets and delivering services; and (iii) demonstrate
greater transparency and accountability in exercising oversight and regulatory
responsibilities.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
Following a performance evaluation of TARA, the present report serves as a baseline for
comparison as the process unfolds in the future and understand whether, and to what
extent, these expected outcomes have occurred in the communities of Dilijan, Tumanyan
and Tatev. In particular, using findings from a desk study, the report first examines if the
newly formed communities have benefitted financially and have gained sufficient budget
revenues for efficient self-governance. Second, drawing on the results of a representative
survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews, the report presents levels of
public satisfaction with the quality of local public services and local infrastructure and levels
of civic involvement in local governance. It also examines public perceptions of and attitudes
toward local self-government bodies as well as community consolidation reforms.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The main findings presented in the report are as follows:
 Overall, per capita budgets in consolidated communities of Dilijan, Tumanyan and

Tatev are either comparable to or lower than per capita budgets in pre-consolidated
settlements that now comprise the larger administrative units. Insufficient financial
5
resources will restrict the local governments to initiate major transformations in
their communities. At this point, the analysis of budgets presented in this report
showed that the available data do not in details reflect the application of savings from
reduced/optimized administrative staff to services.
 One and a half year after the consolidation, the physical conditions of intra- and
inter-settlement roads in all three communities remain poor and cause major public
dissatisfaction.
 The state of some basic public services, such as public transportation and trash
removal, generally remain unsatisfactory as well.
 The state of pre-school education in the three communities leaves much to be
desired, whereas opportunities for extra-curricular education are extremely limited
especially for inhabitants of faraway settlements.
 Self-reported civil involvement in local self-governance in Dilijan, Tatev and
Tumanyan is low. Public participation in community life is insignificant. According to
public perceptions, generally, LSGs do not take initiative to meet with community
residents and listen to their opinions. LSGs do not encourage citizens’ participation
in sessions of local councils either. However, after consolidation LSGs have taken
some measures to ensure citizens’ online participation in community issues.
 Levels of public trust toward local authorities in Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev are not
high. Public assessment of transparency of LSGs is low as well. Community residents
are generally unaware of various aspects of LSG activities, despite LSGs have started
using the Internet to give publicity to their work.
 The quantitative data showed that among the population of communities "no
change" perception is predominant.
The facts and figures associated with the above listed findings are presented in the chapters
of the report and supported by a detailed description of the issues from the qualitative data
acquired during the evaluation.
Based on the major findings of the study, the report makes the following recommendations
to the RA Government, LSG bodies, and donor organizations:
 Local authorities should look for additional sources of budget revenues to solve the
community issues and improve the quality of services. It should be well noted that
the premise of the reform is that the savings resulted from reduced/optimized
administrative staff could then be applied to services and this has to be monitored
further.
 The launch of services intended by TARA should be accelerated to cancel out any
public disillusions associated with the delay of these services.
 Serious and immediate measures should be taken to renovate inter-settlement roads
and public transportation which will provide residents of remote settlements with
access to services available only in community centers.
6
 LSGs should improve the transparency and accountability of their work, as well as
regularly listen to citizens’ voices. A more trustful local government will attract more
civic participation in local governance. Apart from broadcasting local council sessions
live, LSGs should make sure the community population is informed about the
sessions and has access to the Internet.
 LSGs should take measures toward creating realistic public expectations associated
with the consolidation reform and should clearly communicate even the slightest
achievements of LSG activities.
7
III. EVALUATION PURPOSE &
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
USAID Armenia initiated the performance evaluation of TARA through baseline (and end-
line) performance evaluation. CRRC-Armenia was committed to conduct the baseline
evaluation activity in a due course.
The evaluation is part of broader evaluation efforts undertaken by the USAID in provision of
the GOAM with the information needed to monitor the reform implementation, determine
what has been achieved, and whether the expected results occur as planned. Upon
completion of the end-line phase, the evaluation will measure the change in specific
outcomes over time as the reform processes unfold.
The data from both baseline and end-line evaluations are to help evaluate and monitor
USAID local governance interventions as well, and inform the broader donor community on
the reform outcomes.
The specific objectives of the evaluation are twofold:

On the perceptional dimension: to measure 1) citizen knowledge and attitude towards
implemented reforms, 2) level of trust towards the local government, and 3) practice of
participatory mechanisms in decision-making through conducting a representative household
survey in the clusters assigned.
On the physical dimension: to measure the actual changes in service provision,
infrastructure development, and economic benefits via such methods as physical verification
of infrastructures, FGDs with community leaders and local businesses, and tracing data from
municipal and program-based records.
This report reflects on the data from baseline evaluation.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The quantitative evaluation was to address the following basic questions:

What mandatory public services are available to citizens?
How many public services meet quality standards?
How many community residents received access to mandatory or enhanced services?
What is the percentage of services delivered at the standard quality level across the
consolidated communities?
What percentage of citizens believes that local authorities exercise their
functions/responsibilities in a transparent, accountable, and responsive manner?
What citizen initiatives are considered and/or addressed by LSGs?
What percent of citizens participates in civic activities, e.g. budget hearing, council session,
petition signing, etc.
How many citizens are satisfied with the delegated services?
See Appendix 3: Analytical Framework for more detailed sub-questions.
8
The proposed qualitative evaluation was to address the following basic question:
What were the economic benefits of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded
activities?
9
IV. METHODOLOGY
EVALUATION DESIGN AND SAMPLING
The evaluation implemented the following methods:
(i) Desk study;

(ii) Key informant interviews;
(ii) Baseline household (HH) survey;
(iii) Observation supplementary to the survey;
(iv) Focus group discussions (FGDs).
The proposed desk study, key informant interviews and FGDs were to address the basic
question of what were the economic benefits of the consolidation process and of the
USAID funded activities. The desk study was to inform the content for FGDs.
The desk study of municipal records required interviewing of key informants/experts to

fulfill any gaps in knowledge on reformation. It was anticipated that a maximum of 7-10 key
informant interviews would be realized upon need to meet the aims and objectives of the
project. Six interviews were achieved and, upon data saturation, the interviewing was
stopped.
Participants of the FGDs (see Table 1) comprised four groups recruited from three
consolidated communities:
(i) Community leaders (community heads, heads of educational institutions);

(ii) Representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) and civic activists;
(iii) LSGs (including municipality) representatives;
(iv) Business representatives.
The community leaders were recruited from each of the newly formed communities
(three separate FGDs were conducted). Under the ‘heads of educational institutions’ the
research team meant key representatives of pre-school and after-school educational and
cultural settings such as the heads of art centers (dancing, singing, drawing, child
development centers) sports clubs, libraries, musical schools.
Two FGDs with business representatives and two other FGDs with CSO representatives
were accomplished. Each of these four focus groups was designed to involve participants
from all three communities.
Three FGDs were accomplished with the LSGs (including municipality representatives.
FGDs with the LSGs and municipality representatives assumed engagement of the
municipality staff, community council members, as well as the staff in subsidiary municipal
institutions (not engaged in the Group 1, see Table 1).
10
Table 1: The Composition and the Number of Achieved FGDs
Focus Groups Number of achieved FGDs
Group 1: Community leaders (community 3
heads, heads of educational institutions)
Group 2: CSO representatives and civic 2
activists
Group 3: LSGs, municipality representatives, 3
the community council members and the staff
in subsidiary municipal institutions
Group 4: Business representatives 2
Total # of FGDs 10
See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 for the FDG guide and the key informant interview
protocol.
The quantitative evaluation process was based on measurement of indicators that assumed
questions as presented in the predefined analytical framework (see Appendix 3). The
presented questions were operationalized for the household survey questionnaire (see
Appendix 4).
Surveying was supplemented by an observation component. The fieldwork supervisors

filled in a physical verification card (see Appendix 5) and made photos of the settlements
they visited. This qualitative observation component aimed at validating the quantitative
survey results.
HOUSEHOLD (HH) SURVEY: SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATIONS, FORMULA

AND JUSTIFICATIONS
The overall HH survey design was a non-experimental pre- and post-test that mirrored
the performance of the Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and Administrative
Reform of Armenia (TARA). An inclusive population-based sample survey was conducted
for the performance evaluation. The survey included structured questions to measure
TARA project indicators, and to measure public knowledge and perception of as well as
attitudes and dispositions toward consolidated municipalities. It recorded responses from
a representative sample of three consolidated communities about the performance
indicators as related to the program.
The minimum required sample size for the baseline survey was estimated based on the
outcome score average from the CELoG (Civic Engagement in Local Governance) index.
The indicator value and the design effect were obtained from the CELoG dataset1. The
CELoG index scores related to transparency, knowledge (on policies and quality of
services) and participation were taken into account: 30 % of the averaged scores pointed
to the efficient operation of the LSGs. For calculation of the minimum sample size, the
expected level of change was estimated at 8 %, the z-scores corresponding to the 95 % α
level and 80 % of β (statistical power) were used. Sampling (Magnani, 1999)2 guidelines
were used to calculate the sample size capable of detecting an 8 % increase in 3 years over
1
CRRC-Armenia, CELoG dataset (2015). [Online] Available from: http://www.crrc.am/research-and-
surveys/ongoing-projects/442-ongoing-projects/CELoG?lang=en. [Accessed 26.04.2017]
2
Magnani, R. (1999). Sampling Guideline. FANTA III.
11
the policy implementation. Consequently, the minimum sample size required per baseline
survey round was computed as follows:
n = [(Zα + Zβ)2 * {P1(1-P1) + P2(1-P2)}/(P2-P1)2] * D * Nf

n = required minimum sample size per baseline survey round (strata)
P1 = Transparency, knowledge and participation averaged rate taken from the CELoG
survey, 0.3=30%
P2 = the expected level of policy performance at end line for the program area so that the
quantity (P2 - P1) in the size of the magnitude of the to-be-detected desired change would
prove an 8 percentage increase, 38% = 0.38. Henceforth, the sample was powered to
detect an 8 percentage point difference in rates across comparison groups (30% value
taken from 2015 CELoG, to 38%)
Zα = the Z-score corresponding to the degree of confidence with which it is desired to be
able to conclude that an observed change of magnitude (P2-P1) would not have occurred
by chance (α - the level of statistical significance for one-tailed test), 95% = 1.645
Zβ = the z-score corresponding to the degree of confidence with which it is desired to be
certain of detecting a change of magnitude (P2-P1) if one actually occurred (β - statistical
power), 80% = 0.84.
D = design effect = 2 (recommended default value)
Nf = Non-response factor (assuming a 10% non-response rate) = 1.10
The formula gave us an orienting number of to-be-approached HHs (954). The sample
was then stratified by three consolidated communities (Tatev, Dilijan, Tumanyan). Based
on the calculation of the formula and accounting for the distribution of population,
946 HHs were sampled using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling method.
The sample size for the baseline and end-line HH survey had to be representative of the
surveyed population and covered ALL settlements in the consolidated communities.
Henceforward, we included all of the settlements in the sampling frame.
For the small settlements with the sample size of less than 8 (PPS method used for
calculation, see Table 3 settlements # 5, 6, 7 in Tumanyan, # 5, 7, 8 in Tatev, # 5, 6 in
Dilijan) re-calculation was performed (total number was maintained) to assure
more representativeness. For Dilijan, the sampled number of 479 HHs was reduced by 50
(this did not affect the representativeness of Dilijan HHs at the 95 % confidence level).
Instead, we added the numbers of small settlement HHs in the sample to assure the
principle of all settlement (population) inclusion.
12
Table 2: Sample of All Settlements and the Sample Size
Settlements Number of HHs % of total N of QQ N of recalculated QQs
1 Tumanyan 513 6 54 54
2 Marts 154 2 16 18
Tumanyan
3 Karinj 148 2 16 18
4 Lorut 227 3 24 24
5 Shamut 64 1 7 12
6 Atan 76 1 8 12
7 Ahnidzor 75 1 8 12
1 Khot 200 2 21 21
2 Halidzor 106 1 11 12
3 Harzhis 160 2 17 17
4 Shinuhayr 527 6 55 55
Tatev
5 Svarants 74 1 8 12
6 Tatev 190 2 20 20
7 Tandzatap 24 0 3 12
8 Kashuni 10 0 1 10
1 Dilijan 4572 51 479 429
2 Haghartsin 845 9 89 89
3 Teghut 331 4 35 35
Dilijan
4 Gosh 386 4 40 40
5 Aghavnavank 98 1 10 13
6 Khachardzan 94 1 10 13
7 Hovk 157 2 16 18
Total 9031 100 946 946
During the third stage, respondents (final sampling units) were sampled using the
upcoming birthday respondent selection method controlling for female and male headed
HHs. Representation of urban and rural sub-groups, as well as the distance from a service
hub (the center) were important analytical criteria after the data was gathered.
13
Upon the end of the HH survey, 795 interviews were conducted. The non-response rate
was slightly higher than it was anticipated. However, this did not affect the
representativeness of the sample and showed that the official numbers of the population
were somewhat less in reality.
KNOWN LIMITATIONS TO THE DESIGN
Non-experimental design: The overall survey design is non-experimental pre- and

post-test, while specifically experimental designs assuming intervention and control group
are considered to be more robust in impact assessments. The major limitation here is that
the design improves internal validity, but sacrifices external validity because there is no
baseline measurement against groups that remained completely untreated/untouched by
the reformation. We have calculated an equal probability for each of the population
representative to be engaged in the sample. No control group could hence be formed for
an experimental design due to the fact that the reformation process is assumed to affect
all of the population in the consolidated communities and may be regarded as a ‘living
experiment’.
Inclusion of the small villages into the sample: We added the numbers of the small
settlement HHs to assure the principle of population inclusion from all of the settlements
of the consolidated communities. However, there was still a concern that these very small
settlements might not be accessible. And indeed, one village named Kashuni had only three
HHs (as reported by the interviewers) that were not approached due to the impassable
road.
No prior data on male- and female-headed HHs: It was statistically impossible to

calculate in advance the representation of male- and female- headed HHs in the
consolidated communities. First, because of the lack of statistical data that would be in
accord to the representativeness measures taken for granted for this particular design
(having the principle of population inclusion from all of the settlements). Second, due to
the qualitative context of the issue: the representativeness of female headed HHs in each
settlement had to be checked in place by the supervisors who had to be accordingly
instructed. Hence, the male- and female- headed HHs were identified as a control
criterion to be taken into account by the fieldwork supervisors.
EVALUATION PLANNING AND PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Detailed work plan for baseline evaluation
The work plan for the baseline evaluation included activities described below:
Desk Study (February 1 - June 30):

The proposed desk study was to address the basic question of what were the benefits
(economic and others) of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded activities.
The study focused on budget changes and is reported in the introductory part of the
report (see Chapter 1: The background of consolidation: Dilijan, Tumanyan, and Tatev).
Survey Design/Planning of the Baseline Data Collection (February 15-April 30):

An inclusive population-based sample survey was conducted for the quantitative part of
the evaluation. The survey was to include structured questions to measure project
indicators, and to measure the present status, knowledge, attitudes, dispositions, practices
14
and perceptions of the public on the newly consolidated municipalities (see Appendix 3). It
recorded responses from a representative sample of three clustered communities in
Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan.
Pretesting of the Evaluation Tools (March 15 - April 30): After the finalization of
all three instruments the following survey methods were pretested. For this purpose
pretest interviewers were identified and trained. Fieldwork materials (cards, letters,
guides, reports templates, etc.) were ready by that time.
 Household survey - Overall 46 pretest interviews were conducted to find out if the
questionnaire worked as it was intended, as well as to identify the length of each
interview so as to adjust the fieldwork timetable.
 FGDs - one pretest focus group discussion was conducted in one of the target
settlements. Upon the report of the researchers, the rest of the focus groups were
conducted.
 In-depth/expert interviews - two pretest in-depth interviews were conducted in one
of the target settlements.
Once the pretest was done, the data collection tools were updated/improved and
finalized.
Mid-term Briefing and Interim Meetings (May 1 - 7): After the approval of data
collection tools the evaluation team met with the USAID/Armenia representatives for a
mid-term briefing on the status of the evaluation, including potential challenges and
emerging opportunities. The team provided USAID with periodic briefings and feedback
on the preliminary findings.
Developing/Updating Tablet Forms for the Household Survey (April 10 - April
30): As the face-to-face interviews are conducted via tablets at the CRRC-Armenia, an
excel form of the questionnaire was created. The tablet form was created by using the
pretest draft version of the questionnaire. After the pretest, once the questionnaire was
finalized, the tablet form was updated.
Training of Fieldwork Staff (May 1 - May 7, TBD): For the purpose of conducting
face-to-face interviews with the population of target settlements, 15 interviewers were
hired from the pool of CRRC-Armenia interviewers. After the fieldwork team was
composed, training was organized to introduce them to the project, its main purpose, and
objectives. During the training, the questionnaire was presented and discussed; necessary
materials (description of the sample, letters to the respondents, show-cards, etc.) were
provided.
Translation of the Survey Instruments onto English (April 20-April 30): The final
versions of all three evaluation instruments were translated into English and submitted to
the USAID for approval. Fieldwork/Household Survey (May 7 - June 7): In three
selected communities 946 face-to-face interviews were planned to be conducted. In the
end, taking into account the response rate, an overall 795 interviews were conducted.
Back-Check Interviews/Calls for Assuring the Quality of the Fieldwork (May
14-June 7): To assure the quality of sampled data, back-check interviews via phone calls
were conducted both during the fieldwork and after its completion. For this purpose a
back-check questionnaire was developed. Certain questions were selected from the
questionnaire to be asked via phone-calls to previously interviewed respondents. Upon
need, back-visits were paid as well as focal points for checking were identified through
15
phone-calls. If the phone calls proved a quality work, back-visits were not paid. Overall, 46
back visits were made.
Key Informant Interviews and FGDs (May1-June7): 6 in-depth/expert interviews
and 10 FGDs were conducted during this period. Each FGD consisted of 10 participants
on average.
Transcription of the Qualitative Study Audio Records (May 7 – June 14):

Transcription of the audio records started after the FGDs and in-depth/expert interviews
were complete and was finished a week after the FGDs and in-depth/expert interviews
were all completed.
Survey Data Archiving, Cleaning and Preliminary Analysis (May 10 - May 31):
After the fieldwork was complete, all the data was transferred from the tablets to CSV
format. To work with the data, the CRRC-Armenia was to further transfer them into
SPSS format and start working on data cleaning and archiving. After the data was clean, the
preliminary analysis of the data was done.
Analysis of Transcriptions the FGDs and in-depth/expert interviews (June 1 –

July 7): After all the audio records were transcribed the CRRC-Armenia expert started
working on the qualitative data analysis. A thematic analysis was done.
Drafting of the Analytical report (July 1 – July 30): Using the materials from the
desk study, survey, and the qualitative data, the work on the analytical report started. A
draft version was submitted to the USAID for review.
Review and Finalization of the Analytical Report (July 23 – August 7): After the
review of the draft version, taking into account the feedback by the USAID, the final
version of the analytical report was produced and submitted.
Translation and Copy-Editing of the Analytical Report and the Charts (PPT
file) onto English (August 7 – August 14): The report and PPT file of the
presentation of the major results were translated into English for USAID approval.
Validation Seminar at the USAID with Stakeholders (August 07 – August 14):

After all of the results of the survey were analyzed, a validation seminar for the USAID
and invitee stakeholders was organized.
16
RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING OF EVALUATION FIELDWORK TEAM
For the purpose of implementation of the survey fieldwork, CRRC-Armenia pooled pre-
testers and interviewers to conduct pretests and 946 household interviews. In addition,
highly qualified interviewers familiar with the questionnaire were selected for control
procedures.
The pre-testers were selected from those who had performed well in the previous CRRC
survey projects. Most of the interviewers for the evaluation fieldwork have previously
worked with CRRC-Armenia on different projects. The newly recruited interviewers were
selected upon the review of their CV’s and recommendations of the experienced
interviewers and supervisors we used to work with. For certain fieldwork areas such as
Goris which proves low response rate if the interviewers are not locals, recruitment of
local interviewers was of importance.
All the fieldwork staff signed non-disclosure agreements, evidenced having no conflict of
interest, and was instructed to work in accord with research ethics guidelines.
Pre-tester’s scope of work was as follows:
a) Participate in the training for pre-testers of evaluation questionnaire
b) Conduct pre-test interviews according to the instructions on evaluation
sampling and fieldwork implementation
c) Report (in written form) to and discuss with the designated program staff all
problems and/or difficulties encountered in the course of the pre-test interviews
Interviewers’ scope of work was as follows:
a) Participate in the training designed for supervisors and interviewers for
evaluation fieldwork
b) In close cooperation with the Program Manager, conduct interviews
according to the instructions provided by CRRC-Armenia
c) Submit completed and verified questionnaires in the tablets and route
address-lists to the fieldwork coordinator while mentioning the status of each
sampled household within the assigned clusters
d) Provide reports to PMDI and fieldwork coordinator on the fieldwork results
and recommendations (if any) toward improvement of the survey fieldwork
e) Treat carefully and return safely the tablets provided by CRRC-Armenia by the
end of the fieldwork
f) Take proper care of observed errors and omissions, if any
Fieldwork controller’s scope of work was as followed:

It was anticipated that overall about 80 total HHs should be visited throughout
three target communities comprised of 22 settlements (approximately 4
observations per settlement).
a) Participate in the training/instruction designed for the TARA fieldwork control.
b) Conduct interviews according to the instructions and sampling plan
c) Submit completed and verified back check questionnaires and route to CRRC-
Armenia, while mentioning the status of each household
d) Provide reports to the Program Manager on the fieldwork back check results
e) Complete and provide the physical verification of community services and
infrastructure form for each settlement (overall 22 forms)
17
The training for fieldwork staff was composed of following basic activities:
 Presentation and overview of the project

 Presentation of the main concepts/terms, provisions of corresponding materials for
fieldwork
 Presentation of survey sampling and random walk protocol
 Provision of tablets, show cards, and other materials
 Definitions of key concepts and information on how to fill in the questionnaire
 Provision of the handouts and forms
 Test on questionnaire completion
 Presentation on administrative issues
Identification of enumeration areas/sampling universe and clusters:

The sample was stratified by three consolidated communities (Tatev, Dilijan, and
Tumanyan). Respondents (final sampling units) were sampled using the upcoming birthday
method (to be discussed) controlling for the female and male headed HHs.
A random walk protocol was provided to the fieldwork staff (see Appendix 6).
Development and pre-testing of the evaluation instruments:

Three evaluation tools were pretested:
 Questionnaire for the household survey

 Protocol for the key informant interviews
 Gide for the focus group discussions
Pilot testing of the household survey instrument showed that the average duration for
completing a questionnaire was 40 minutes. The households and respondents in each
household were selected randomly in order to have a variety of responses which could
help to assess how the respondents understood the questions/terms, and to generate
some answer options for open-ended questions.
The pre-tester’s feedback was that the questionnaire was interesting to the
interviewees. Unlike most of other surveys we have conducted, the respondents were
surprisingly interested in this survey. They responded to all of the questions without
getting bored. There were questions that were very hard to understand (noted in pre-
tester’s report), however, the respondents did not reject to answer any question.
For some questions it was recommended to add the answer code “99” for options
“Not applicable” or “Service is not provided in the settlement”.
It is worth mentioning that almost half of addresses in apartment buildings in Dilijan
visited by the pre-testers were “closed doors” (no occupants): in order to complete 4
questionnaires in Dilijan the pre-testers visited almost all apartments in 8 apartment
buildings. This was taken into account while planning and implementing the main survey
in Dilijan city (the city district and N step of random walk). After the fieldwork ended,
the highest non-response rate was recorded in Dilijan.
18
DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION
Staffing roles and responsibilities:
The Project Director ensured smooth project implementation and quality of deliverables
according to the proposed timeline.
The Team Leader was responsible for management of the evaluation team, data collection
and synthesis, presentations and review of the draft interim/final reports.
The Survey Specialist was responsible for developing the sampling plan, designing and
supervising the fieldwork, and training the selected enumerators prior to the fieldwork, as
well as processing the data. In close cooperation with the other experts, the staff member
conducted primary analysis of the collected data and commented on survey based findings.
The Report Analyst/Writer was responsible for the analysis of survey findings and
supporting the Team Leader and other respective experts in preparing the Final Evaluation
report.
The Development Officer was responsible for desk review contributed to preparation of
the final evaluation report.
The Office & HR Manager with the support of the Survey Specialist took care of hiring
fieldwork staff. The staff member was further responsible for contracting the staff, as well
as providing logistical and administrative support for all of the planned activities.
The Data Entry Software Manager was responsible for the creation of tablet forms (based
on the evaluation tools). After the fieldwork, the staff member was further responsible for
transportation of data from tablets to CSV and then to SPSS formats (to make them
available for data analysis).
The Accountant was responsible for financial management and reporting. This included the
calculating and transferring of the salaries for the project and fieldwork staff, managing all
the expenditures carried out during the project and preparation of the financial report.
The Project Assistant was responsible for facilitating the events and supporting the training
of the field staff, as well as other project implementation work.
The LSG Expert provided expertise in the LSG field by contributing to the development of
the analytical framework of the project, as well as providing recommendations for the
research conduct (development of the evaluation instruments etc.).
The fieldwork Pre-testers and Controllers were to conduct pretests and supervise
fieldwork to assure the successful survey process.
The Interviewers were responsible for the data gathering (see section above: Recruitment
and training of evaluation fieldwork team).
FG Moderators and Interviewers (for key informant interviews): The moderators and the
interviewers were responsible for the conduct of the FGDs and key informant interviews.
Data collection quality assurance and feedback process:
The fieldwork staff was responsible for submitting report forms to the CRRC-Armenia
expert staff and was in ongoing communication with the Survey Specialist (for the survey)
and the Team Leader (for FGDs and key informant interviews).
19
The report forms submitted by the fieldwork staff assured in-process monitoring of the
fieldwork activities. The reports provided information on the following:
Questionnaire:
How the interviewees responded to the questionnaire, particularly the questions on
violence and sexuality. What feedback, if any, the fieldwork staff received from research
participants about the nature of the research.
Ethical issues or incidents:

What, if any, issues arose or incidents occurred during the fieldwork that posed ethical
challenges to the research project. How the fieldwork staff dealt with these.
Challenges:
Problems, technical or otherwise, the respondents, interviewers and supervisors had
during fieldwork. How the fieldwork staff dealt with these.
Successes:
The positive feedback of the respondents, interviewers and supervisors was recorded.
Lessons:
What lessons interviewers and supervisors learnt during the fieldwork. Any
recommendations were recorded.
Issues with interviewers (pre-testers and controllers only):

Description and discussion of problems or conflicts that arose from work with
interviewers. If so, how the supervisors dealt with those situations.
Interviewer stories and personal experiences (interviewers only):

The fieldwork experience was described. Surprises or challenges were reported.
In summary, the fieldwork staff reported a positive experience. Some mentioned

difficulties with roads. One village was inaccessible. Dilijan fieldwork staff recorded high
rates for non-responses. Controllers reported a smooth fieldwork realization (in terms of
the random walk and achievement of responses) in Goris.
Daily data transmission:

The fieldwork staff conducted the evaluation survey by using tablet forms, which meant
that as soon as the interviewers submitted the filled-in form, the CRRC-Armenia Survey
Specialist received the data and could realize in-process analysis and data quality check.
20
DATA ANALYSIS
The data received from the evaluation survey was analyzed according to the predefined
analytical framework (see Appendix 3). If new topics for analysis emerged, they were
included in the analytical scope as well.
Basic thematic blocks for the survey data analysis were as followed:
 Respondents’ social and demographic profile: Survey respondents, FGD

participants, Key Informants
 Quality of and Access to Services in the Community
 LSGs: Citizen Perceptions, Attitudes, and Trust
 Civil Activity, Participation in Self-Governance
 Implemented LSG Reforms: Citizen Knowledge, Attitudes, and Expectations
The audio recordings from the FGDs and key informant interviews were transcribed
verbatim. The analyst further read the transcripts and realized a thematic analysis. The
analyst merged similar meaning units, which were later grouped in themes. Several quotes
supporting the analytical writing were separated for reporting proposes.
Data analysis methodology:
Robustness tests and sensitivity analysis to assess the quality of data and
processes:
Before reporting descriptive statistics, relevant variables are explored in terms of bivariate
coefficients such as Chi squared tests, Mann Whitney U test, ANOVAs, as well as t-tests.
Data quality limitations and mitigation strategies for data analysis:

The number of interviews in the Dilijan consolidated community was higher than in other
two communities due to the proportion-to-population sample. This was taken into
account while reporting the data.
The database was not weighted. If we did weight it, the number of interviews for Dilijan
would be decreased. We decided to keep the data as it was gathered as much as possible.
Data entry and cleaning:

As the survey was to be conducted using tablets, with the support of the Online Data Kit
(ODK) platform, a tablet form of the questionnaire was created. Initially, the excel form of
the questionnaire was generated. After the form was created and verified, it was
transformed into an XLSForm, which is a standard form created to help simplify the
authoring of forms in Excel. Hereafter, the XLSForm was validated-using the “ODK
Validate 1.4.5” tool for Online Data Collection. After the XLSForm validation, a new ODK
online form was established and the online version of the questionnaire could be accessed
via the tablets. During fieldwork all of the interviewers periodically (when they had access
to the internet) submitted already completed questionnaires. Subsequently, 795 completed
questionnaires were submitted and archived in the ODK aggregate online platform, from
where the dataset was exported to a csv form.
As proposed, the data analysis was to be done using SPSS statistics software package;
hence the csv dataset was exported into SPSS. After inputting the data in the SPSS, we
started creating the Variable View part of the SPSS-giving names, labels, and values to the
variables, as well as identifying the type and measurement peculiarities for each variable.
21
Verification of skip rules was implemented. For the cases when the respondent should skip
one or more questions, or for multiple answer questions when the respondent had only
one answer, the csv form had empty cells, which were separated and defined. All the skips
were reviewed by running data checks to look for invalid or missing values in variables
based on the skip rules. In parallel to this process all open ended questions were
translated and recoded.
Many questions had an “other” option, which was open ended. These questions were
coded as well. Invalid or missing values in variables were checked based on the skip rules.
For any rare cases when the interviewers made any mistake in filling in the form, we had
an interviewer error option/code.
Hence, all the missing values were modified and replaced by the respective values (legal
skip, interviewer error, etc.).
The list of the sampled settlements was available for verifying the coding scheme for the
identified variables.
The next step of data cleaning was question by question checking. The descriptive
command was used to determine measures of central tendency (mean), measures of
dispersion (range, standard deviation, variance, minimum and maximum), and distribution
of each variable.
Verification and Correction of Extreme Values was implemented as well.
By name, surname, date of birth and settlement type, any duplicate cases were revealed.
Two cases in the Dilijan community were defined as duplicated and were removed from
the database.
After question by question checking, logical checking of the data took place. All related
variables were checked for logical inconsistencies. Hence, all questions were checked,
omissions were corrected, missing values received corresponding values/codes, and the
database was ready for further data analysis.
22
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION:
THE BACKGROUND OF
CONSOLIDATION IN DILIJAN,
TUMANYAN AND TATEV
THE IDEA OF CONSOLIDATION
The rationale behind the current community consolidation process in Armenia is

formulated in “The Concept of Community Consolidation and Formation of Inter-
Community Unions”, a document adopted by the Government of the Republic of Armenia
on 10 November 20113. According to the Concept, the existing administrative-territorial
division of Armenia poses serious challenges for the empowerment of communities and
further development of local self-governance in the country. In particular, the system of
local self-governance is overly partitioned, as rural settlements with small populations
comprise the overwhelming majority of communities in Armenia4. The small communities,
in their turn, either do not provide public services or fail to provide them at a decent
level. As the document states, - “Of nine hundred and fifteen communities, eight hundred
sixty six are rural; and in the majority of these rural communities, delivery of many public
services is either of a low quality or non-existent.”5 Shortage of financial resources is the
main reason for incapacity to deliver public services. According to the same document,
administrative expenses comprise the overwhelming portion of budget expenditures in the
communities6.
The authors of the Concept argue that consolidation of communities will have multiple
benefits for local governance in Armenia. Most importantly, consolidation will positively
affect delivery of public services. Consolidation means consolidated infrastructures, which
now can serve the entire community, including those settlements that have previously
been deprived of the access to specific public services. Extension of public services to
larger populations also decreases the cost per unit of service. Finally, savings from the
reduction of administrative staff in consolidating communities will also contribute to the
betterment of public service delivery7.
According to the Concept, community consolidation includes other benefits as well. For
example, consolidation will result in communities with bigger populations hence with
larger human resources for community administration. Consolidation will also make local
elections more competitive8.
The Government of Armenia selected 22 communities in the marzes of Lori, Tavush, and
Syunik, to be included into three pilot projects of consolidation. In particular, these
3
The Government of the Republic of Armenia. The Concept of Community Consolidation and Formation of
Inter-Community Unions. Decree N 44, 10 November 2011.
4
Ibid., p. 5.
5
Ibid. p. 4.
6
Ibid. p. 9.
7
Ibid. pp. 24-28.
8
Ibid.
23
communities were supposed to be merged into larger community formations of Dilijan,
Tatev and Tumanyan.
De jure, emergence of the consolidated communities of Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan took
place on 15 December 2015, after President Serj Sarkisyan signed the Law of the Republic
of Armenia “On Making Changes and Amendments in the RA Law on Territorial-
Administrative Division of the RA.” According to this Law, the community of Tumanyan
was formed as a result of consolidation of the communities of Tumanyan, Atan, Ahnidzor,
Lorut, Shamut, Qatinj, and Marts, all in the marz of Lori. Similarly, the community of Tatev
was formed as a result of consolidation of the communities of Tatev, Shinuhayr, Halidzor,
Harjis, Svarants, Khot, Tandzatap, and Qashuni, all in the marz of Syuniq. Finally, the
community of Dilijan was formed as a result of consolidation of the communities of Dilijan,
Aghavnavank, Gosh, Teghut, Khachardzan, Haghartzin, and Hovq, all in the marz of Tavush.
Adoption of the Law was preceded by legally non-binding local plebiscites held on 17 May
2015 in all of the aforementioned communities9. As Appendix 7 shows, of 22 communities,
only 5 from the Dilijan and Tumanyan clusters voted against the community merger
(highlighted in yellow). Overall, 70 percent of voters in the Tumanyan cluster and 76
percent of voters in the Dilijan cluster voted for consolidation. Of note, the support for
consolidation in the Tatev cluster was so overwhelming (95 percent) that the opposition
questioned validity of the referendum10.
De facto, the consolidated communities of Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan came into
existence after the election of local authorities (Community Head and Local Councils) on
14 February 2016. According to a report of an observation mission, overall, the elections
were “free and independent”11.
THE NEW BUDGETS OF DILIJAN, TATEV AND TUMANYAN
Tumanyan
Temporal comparative budget analysis of settlements within the consolidated Tumanyan
community indicates a post-consolidation decrease in financial resources. First, the 2017
budget of consolidated Tumanyan community (AMD 120,085,60012) is smaller than the
2015 individual budgets of the six Tumanyan settlements taken together (AMD
124,868,50013). The decrease is evident also after temporal comparison of pre- and post-
consolidation per capita budgets (community budget divided by community population
size). Table 1.1 (Column “Per Capita Community Budget 2015”) lists per capita budgets of
six Tumanyan communities before consolidation. Compared with the per capita budget of
9
See The Official Webpage of the Central Election Commission of Armenia. Local Referendum.
http://www.elections.am/electionsview/type-8/ (accessed 2 June 2017)
10
Freedom House. Armenia 2016. Report.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NiT2016%20Armenia.pdf (accessed 2 June 2017)
11
CELoG. The Local Elections in Tatev, Tumanyan, and Dilijan, 14 February 2017. Report of an observation
mission carried out by CELoG Consortium, p. 1. http://cfoa.am/archives/9902 (Accessed 4 June 2017)
12
Marzpetaran of Lori. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Lori (Functional Classification of Budget
Expenditures), 2017, first trimester. http://lori.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/
(accessed 2 May 2017)
13
Expenditures), 2015, fourth trimester. http://lori.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/
24
consolidated Tumanyan community in 2017 (i.e. AMD 26,48014), the pre-consolidation
budgets appear more advantageous in numbers. As Table 1.1 (column “Difference”)
demonstrates, of the six consolidated settlements, five have experienced per capita budget
decreases. In the case of Shamut, per capita budget has most significantly dropped by 37
percent.
Table 1.1. Comparison of per capita community budgets before and after
Tumanyan consolidation
Community Community Actual Per Capita Per Capita Difference
Name Budget 2015 Population Community Consolidated
AMD15 Size16 Budget 2015 Community
Budget 2017
Tumanyan 48,598,300 1712 28,387 26,480 -1,907
Atan 7,811,500 265 29,477 26,480 -2,997
Ahnidzor 6,993,400 217 32,228 26,480 -5,748
Lorut 21,623,300 1022 21,158 26,480 +5,322
Shamut 7,748,500 185 41,884 26,480 -15,404
Qarinj 17,324,000 580 29,869 26,480 -3,389
Marts 14,769,500 554 26,660 26,480 -180
Given the enormous tasks that the newly formed community faces, the 2017 budget of
Tumanyan inspires little optimism. The current budget size evidently handicaps resolution
of major community issues such as a major overhaul of intra-community roads,
construction of water supply systems, or provision of new employment opportunities for
community residents. At best, with the current financial resources the community
government can provide basic services and make some cosmetic transformations in the
community infrastructure.
Tatev
Temporal comparative budget analysis of settlements within the consolidated Tatev
community demonstrates that the financial resources of the newly formed Tatev
community have decreased as well. In particular, the 2017 budget of the consolidated
Tatev community (AMD 190,131,00017) is 37 percent smaller than the 2015 individual
14 The 2017 budget of consolidated Tumanyan community (AMD 120,085,600) divided by the actual
population size of the consolidated community, namely 4535. See Official webpage of Lori Marz, Republic of
Armenia. http://lori.mtad.am/about-communities/466/ (accessed 2 May 2017).
15
Expenditures), 2015, fourth trimester. http://lori.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/
16 Official webpage of Lori Marz, Republic of Armenia.
http://lori.mtad.am/about-communities/466/ (accessed 2 May 2017)

17
Marzpetaran of Syunik. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Syunik (Functional Classification of
Budget Expenditures), 2017, first trimester. http://syunik.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed
3 May 2017)
25
budgets of the eight Tatev settlements taken together (AMD 302,887,10018). This
significant difference between pre- and post-consolidation budgets in Tatev might be
accounted for by the unusually large budget of Khot community in 2015 (See Table 1.2),
most likely the result of accumulation of unspent funds from preceding years. To compare,
the 2014 budget of Khot was only AMD 37,088,00019. Temporal comparison of pre- and
post-consolidation per capita budgets shows mixed results. Table 1.2 (column “Per Capita
Community Budget 2015”) lists per capita budgets of the eight Tatev communities before
consolidation. Comparison of these budgets with the 2017 per capita budget of
consolidated Tatev community (AMD 29,95620) reveals that half of the consolidated
communities have slightly benefited from consolidation, whereas the other half have
significantly suffered from it (in terms of the financial resources). As Table 1.2 (column
“Difference”) demonstrates, settlements benefiting financially from consolidation include
Svarants, Halidzor, Tatev, and Harjis, the latter gaining only insignificantly (+AMD 814).
Meanwhile, of the other four disadvantaged communities, the cases of Khot and Qashuni
stand out in that per capita budgets in these settlements have decreased drastically, by 80
percent and 83 percent, respectively.
Tatev consolidation
Budget 2017
Tatev 25,307,000 1042 24287 29,956 +5,669
Shinuhayr 87,790,300 2593 33857 29,956 -3,901
Halidzor 13,132,300 602 21814 29,956 +8,142
Harjis 24,216,900 831 29142 29,956 +814
Svarants 6,536,700 360 18158 29,956 +11,798
Khot 135,814,200 890 152600 29,956 -122,644
Tandzatap 5,354,600 103 51986 29,956 -22,030
Qashuni 4,735,100 27 175374 29,956 -145,418
As in Tumanyan, the unfavorable consolidated budget leaves Tatev unable to enact many
positive changes in the newly formed community. Obviously, the local authorities of Tatev
18
Budget Expenditures), 2015 fourth trimester. http://syunik.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/
19
Budget Expenditures, 2014 fourth trimester. http://syunik.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/) (accessed 22
August 2017).
20
The 2017 budget of consolidated Tatev community (190,131,000) divided by the actual population size of
the consolidated community, namely 6347. See Official webpage of Lori Marz, Republic of Armenia.
http://lori.mtad.am/about-communities/466/ (accessed 3 May 2017)
21
Budget Expenditures), 2015 fourth trimester. http://syunik.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/
22 Official webpage of Syunik Marz, Republic of Armenia.
http://syunik.mtad.am/about-communities/448/ (accessed 3 May 2017)

26
will have no chances in the near future to initiate major infrastructure improvements, such
as construction of intra-community roads or drinking water supply systems. They will
most probably be limited to providing basic public services and making cosmetic
renovations. On a slightly positive note, the amalgamation of eight individual budgets into a
consolidated community budget seems to have evened up the unequal distribution of
financial resources that pre-existed consolidation (see, for example, the cases of Khot and
Kashuni, Table 1.2).
Dilijan
Temporal comparative budget analysis of settlements within the consolidated Dilijan
community reveals another case of a significant post-consolidation decrease in financial
resources. In particular, the 2017 budget of the consolidated Dilijan community (AMD
733,787,17423) is smaller than the 2015 individual budgets of the seven Dilijan settlements
taken together (AMD 925,635,36224) by 21 percent. As in case of Tatev, this significant
difference between pre- and post-consolidation budgets in Dilijan might be accounted for
by the unusually large budget of Dilijan community in 2015 (See Table 1.3), most likely the
result of accumulation of unspent funds from preceding years. To compare, the 2014
budget of Dilijan was only AMD 418,000,00025. The decrease is evident also after temporal
comparison of pre- and post-consolidation per capita budgets. Table 1.3 (column “Per
Capita Community Budget 2015”) lists per capita budgets of seven Dilijan communities
before consolidation. As Table 1.3 (column “Difference”) shows, the 2017 consolidated
Dilijan per capita budget (AMD 27,47526) is larger than per capita budgets of pre-
consolidated Haghartzin and Hovq, the difference being insignificant. In the remaining five
settlements, post-consolidation per capita budgets have decreased. Disadvantaged
settlements include the town of Dilijan, where per capita budget went down by 24
percent, as well as Gosh and Khachardzan, where per capita budgets have dropped by 30
percent and 48 percent respectively.
Dilijan consolidation
Budget 2017
Dilijan 681,791,004 18754 36,354 27,475 -8,879
23
Marzpetaran of Tavush. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Tavush (Functional Classification of
Budget Expenditures), 2017, first trimester. http://tavush.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed
3 May 2017)
24
Budget Expenditures), 2015 Annual Budget. http://tavush.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed
8 May 2017)
25
Marzpetaran of Tavush. On Local Budgets in the Marz of Tavush in 2014. http://tavush.mtad.am/community-
budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 22 August 2017)
26 The 2017 budget of consolidated Dilijan community (AMD 733,787,174) divided by the actual population
size of the consolidated community, namely 26707. See the official webpage of Tavush Marz, Republic of
Armenia. http://tavush.mtad.am/about-communities/697/ (accessed 8 May 2017)
27
Budget Expenditures), 2015 Annual Budget. http://tavush.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed
8 May 2017)
28 Official webpage of Tavush Marz, Republic of Armenia.
http://tavush.mtad.am/about-communities/697/ (accessed 8 May 2017)
27
Aghavnavank 11,855,993 349 33,971 27,475 -6,496
Gosh 44,502,162 1139 39,071 27,475 -11,596
Teghut 46,063,700 1580 29,154 27,475 -1,679
Khachardzan 19,860,186 373 53,244 27,475 -25,769
Haghartzin 109,888,295 4073 26,980 27,475 +495
Hovq 11,674,022 4039 26,592 27,475 +883
The case of the consolidated community of Dilijan fits the general pattern of post-
consolidation communities receiving decreased funding. Before consolidation, the
infrastructure and delivery of public services in the town of Dilijan had obviously been in a
better state than in the other six settlements of the consolidated community. At present,
consolidated Dilijan is facing the immense task of improving the infrastructure and services
of the whole community, relying on even scarcer financial resources. Therefore, as in the
cases of Tumanyan and Tatev, the local government of Dilijan will assumedly limit itself to
providing basic public services and performing inessential renovations of physical facilities
needed for the operation of the community.
In summary, the review of community budgets in Tumanyan, Tatev and Dilijan allows for
the following assumptions:
 The process of consolidation has not created new local sources of budget revenues
for the consolidated communities;
 The Government of Armenia has not increased the so called equalization subsidies
for the consolidated communities; instead, the subsidies have decreased in
comparison with those granted to individual communities before consolidation;
 In the near future, the Government of Armenia plans to improve the local
governance of the communities under consideration mostly through redistribution
of existing funds (e.g. cutting administrative expenses and redirecting the emerging
funds to other spheres), not through the increase of state subsidies.
 In view of the limited financial resources available to the newly formed
communities, no breakthroughs in resolution of existing major community issues –
such as overhaul or construction of intra-community roads, irrigation systems, or
reduction of unemployment and migration rates – should be envisaged in the near
future.
USAID’S SUPPORT TO CONSOLIDATION
While the official budgets of 2017 inspire little hope for substantial improvements in
community life of Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan, international aid projects generate
moderate optimistic expectations, at least for specific areas of infrastructure in these
communities. One such project is USAID’s “Support to Local Self-Government Reforms”
implemented in partnership with the Armenia Territorial Development Fund (ATDF). The
main purpose of the project is to enhance specific areas of community infrastructure, such
as unpaved (dirt) roads, water supply system, public transportation, sanitation, etc. Table
1.4 presents the specific activities (with their costs) that the project envisages to
implement in each community29. The total cost of the project for the communities of
29
The information on activities and their costs has been collected from working briefs provided BY USAID
Armenia.
28
Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan is around $ 2.5 million, with the bulk of expenses
(approximately 90 percent) being covered by the USAID and the remaining portion co-
financed by the communities.
As Table 1.4 shows, some of the activities pertain to all three communities and some are
tailored to individual community needs. For example, renovation of intracommunity roads
and systematic removal of garbage are the activities that the USAID project supports in all
three communities. In particular, to renovate intracommunity unpaved (dirt) roads, the
project has financially enabled the communities of Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan to
purchase tractors, trucks and graders. Similarly, to collect and transport garbage on a
regular basis from all consolidated settlements, the communities have been enabled to
purchase garbage trucks and waste bins.
Table 1.4. The USAID funded activities (and approximate costs) for the
consolidated communities of Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan (AMD)
Activities Dilijan Tatev Tumanyan
Purchase of machinery for intra-community road

169,400,000 87,800,000 52,000,000
renovations
Garbage removal 188,760,000 28,500,000 28,000,000
Introduction of multifunctional bus stops 23,232,000 - -
Enhancement of external lighting 464,640,000 - -
Establishment of engineering laboratories 29,040,000 - -
Improvement of the intra-community public

- 18,000,000 37,500,000
transportation
Purchase of machinery to improve efficiency in

- 62,000,000 -
agriculture
Improvement of the drinking water supply system - 18,750,000 -
Construction of greenhouses - - 12,000,000
Construction of an automobile park and a car

- - 26,800,000
service center
Total 875,072,000 215,050,000 118,800,000
Improvement of intracommunity public transportation is an activity common only for

Tatev and Tumanyan. According to the project, these communities will acquire minibuses
and build bus stops to connect the community settlements with one another.
The remaining activities presented in Table 1.4 are tailored to individual needs of the
communities. In the case of Dilijan, development of tourism appears to be a priority: The
USAID project will support Dilijan to extend and improve its external lighting system as
well as to build multifunctional bus stops. The latter will offer opportunities for local
residents to sell their produce and cater to the needs of tourists. In Tatev, the project will
fund activities aimed at the improvement of drinking water supply system, whereas in
Tumanyan, the project will finance the construction of greenhouses and an automobile
service center.
29
According to media reports and official announcements made by the authorities of Dilijan,
Tatev and Tumanyan, these communities, at the moment of writing this report, had
already acquired some of the machinery funded by the USAID project. For example, in the
period between March and May 2017, the community of Tatev received a tractor, an
excavator, a truck, a garbage truck and two combine harvesters30. In the course of 2016,
Dilijan acquired two trucks and two multifunctional excavators31; the process of
acquisition in the community continued in the first trimester of 2017 as well32. During
March-April 2017, Tumanyan received a multifunctional excavator, a truck, and a garbage
truck33.
In some instances, the acquired machinery has already been put into use. For example,
according to a report from Tumanyan, the new excavator and the truck have already been
employed to perform some infrastructure improvement works34. In an interview to a local
television channel, the Head of the Tumanyan community said that the new equipment
would be a significant help to the consolidated community35. According to the community
Head, the new excavator will be used to improve the “terrible” intra-community roads as
well as to dig a trench for a water pipe line in the settlement of Qarinj. The garbage truck
will enable the community to collect and remove the garbage, an activity to be performed
for the first time in the communit From a long term perspective, a cleaner community will
better serve tourism and ecotourism projects36.
According to official reports from Dilijan, this community has already taken measures to
improve the infrastructure of its consolidated units. For example, during 2016, the local
self-government filled road holes in Dilijan, renovated unpaved (dirt) roads in Teghut,
Gosh, Haghartzin, Khachardzan, and Hovq, as well as reconstructed a retaining wall in
Teghut destroyed by floods37. Assumedly, the community made use of the USAID-donated
machinery to perform these activities.
In summary, the USAID’s “Support to Local Self-Government Reforms” project made it

possible for the local governments of Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan to bring about positive
changes in specific domains of their community lives. In the very near future, all three
communities will systematically deliver garbage collection and dirt road renovation
services, including all consolidated settlements. Other activities intended by the project,
such as improvement of the water supply system in Tatev, construction of multipurpose
30
See The Official Webpage of the Community of Tatev.
http://tatevhamaynq.am/Pages/Home/Default.aspx/newsdetails.aspx?nID=435 (accessed 4 June 2017)
31 The Report of the Head of the Community of Dilijan, 01.01.2016 – 01.01.2017. The Official Webpage of
the Community of Dilijan.

http://www.dilijancity.am/Pages/Home/newsdetails.aspx?nID=1007#.WTpOQvmGPIU (accessed 1 June 2017)
32 The Report of the Head of the Community of Dilijan, 01.01.2017 – 01.04.2017. The Official Webpage of

http://www.dilijancity.am/Pages/Home/newsdetails.aspx?nID=1034#.WTpNi_mGPIU (accessed 2 June 2017)
33 See The Official Webpage of the Community of Tumanyan.
http://www.tumanyancity.am/Pages/Home/newsdetails.aspx?nID=486#.WSQB4Pl97IU (accessed 4 June 2017)

34 See The Official Webpage of the Community of Tumanyan.
http://www.tumanyancity.am/Pages/Home/newsdetails.aspx?nID=490#.WSQA0fl97IU (accessed 4 June 2017)

35 Fortuna TV. Support to the Consolidated Community of Tumanyan. Video Report. 29․04․2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2C60Ihg364 (Accessed 05.05.2017)

36
Ibid
37
The Report of the Head of the Community of Dilijan, 01.01.2016 – 01.01.2017. The Official Webpage of
http://www.dilijancity.am/Pages/Home/newsdetails.aspx?nID=1007#.WTpOQvmGPIU (accessed 1 June 2017)
30
bus stops in Dilijan, or improvement of public transportation in Tatev and Tumanyan, will
take a longer time to materialize.
To sum up, the RA Government views the community consolidation in Armenia as a

means to improve the delivery of public services via consolidation of human, financial, and
technical resources into more viable administrative units. The temporal comparison of
budgets revealed that per capita budgets in consolidated communities are lower than per
capita budgets in pre-consolidated settlements that now comprise the larger administrative
units. This situation will most probably restrict the local governments to initiate major
transformations in their communities. Whereas the Government of Armenia has in fact
decreased its financial support to Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan, the USAID’s financial aid to
the process of consolidation in these communities inspires some hope. In particular, due
to acquisitions of machinery and equipment intended by the USAID project, the
aforementioned communities can immediately start the systematic delivery of some basic
services, such as removal of garbage or repair of intra-community unpaved roads.
31
CHAPTER 2. INFRASTRUCTURE
AND PUBLIC SERVICES AFTER
CONSOLIDATION
This section of the report presents the survey findings regarding public satisfaction with
some of the infrastructure elements and public services delivered in the communities of
Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan. Survey data are supplemented by findings from focus group
discussions with community leaders, LSG, civil society and business representatives, as well
as from key informant interviews with local experts.
ROADS
The quality of roads in the communities of Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan remain a major
infrastructure concern. As Charts 2.1 and 2.2 show, this problem is relevant for both intra-
and inter-settlement roads. According to Chart 1, the overwhelming majority of
respondents (82 percent in Dilijan, 74 percent in Tatev, and 84 percent in Tumanyan) are
not satisfied with the maintenance of roads within their settlements. As for the quality of
roads between the settlements, as Chart 2 shows, the respondents from Tumanyan seem
to be the most dissatisfied (90 percent), followed by the respondents from Tatev (73
percent), and Dilijan (64 percent). The relatively lower level of dissatisfaction with the
quality of inter-community roads in Dilijan might be attributed to the fact that some of
these roads (e.g. between Dilijan and Haghartzin) overlap with the major highways
maintained by the central government.
Chart 2.1. Satisfaction with the maintenance of roads in the settlements
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied

Not satisfied Not available/not applicable
DK
Dilijan 5 14 82
Tatev 12 13 74 1
Tumanyan 3 11 84 2
32
Chart 2.2 Satisfaction with the maintenance of roads between the settlements
in the community

DK
Dilijan 9 22 64 5
Tatev 7 18 73 2
Tumanyan 5 90 32
The communities under discussion do not possess serious technical resources, such as
machinery garages or machinery renovation services, which could enable them to upkeep
their roads. For example, as Chart 3 shows, 87 percent of the respondents in Dilijan and
83 percent in Tumanyan say that they are not aware of machinery renovation services in
their settlements or those services do not exist in their settlements altogether. The
percentage of respondents from Tatev who are aware of machinery renovation services
operating in their community is slightly higher; however, only 7 percent of the
respondents are satisfied with the quality of these services.
Chart 2.3. Satisfaction with the repair services for agricultural and road
maintenance machinery

DK
Dilijan 33 7 40 47
Tatev 7 13 18 34 28
Tumanyan 2 5 11 67 15
33
Chart 2.4. Satisfaction with garages for agricultural and road renovation
machinery

DK
Dilijan 22 2 64 29
Tatev 14 21 13 20 32
Tumanyan 1 4 10 71 14
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Public transportation is another major issue that the communities of Dilijan, Tatev, and
Tumanyan face. As Chart 2.5 shows, a majority of the respondents in Tatev (57 percent)
and Tumanyan (51 percent) say that public transportation is not available in their
communities. Meanwhile, only 11 percent of the respondents in Tatev and 10 percent in
Tumanyan are happy with the quality of existing transportation. Although the situation in
Dilijan is somewhat better (only 5 percent report no availability of public transportation),
only one quarter of Dilijan respondents are satisfied with the quality of existing
transportation in the community.
Chart 2.5. Satisfaction with public transportation in the community

DK
Dilijan 25 26 41 5 2
Tatev 11 13 18 57 1
Tumanyan 10 11 27 51 2
Improvement of the transportation system in the communities of Dilijan, Tatev, and

Tumanyan, will also require construction of new and renovation of existing bus stops. At
the moment, as Chart 6 shows, bus stops remain unavailable for the majority of
respondents in Tatev (55 percent) and Tumanyan (77 percent). In Dilijan, the current
34
situation is significantly better, as only 10 percent report unavailability of bus stops in their
settlements, and 41 percent report they are satisfied with existing bus stops.
Chart 2.6. Satisfaction with community bus stops

DK
Dilijan 41 26 20 10 3
Tatev 5 12 13 55 15
Tumanyan 1 3 17 77 1
STREET LIGHTING
As Chart 2.7 shows, the levels of public satisfaction with street lighting are comparable in
Dilijan and Tatev. In these two communities, approximately half of the respondents
expressed their satisfaction with street lights in their settlements. Only 26 percent of the
respondents from Tumanyan were satisfied with street lighting, whereas 43 percent
reported that street lighting was not available for them.
Chart 2.7. Satisfaction with night lighting of the streets of the settlement

DK
Dilijan 44 23 26 51
Tatev 54 20 22 31
Tumanyan 26 13 18 43
SANITARY CONDITIONS
Of the three communities, Tatev seems to be most advanced in terms of trash removal.
Here, 60 percent of the respondents said they were satisfied with the service of trash
removal. To compare, only 29 percent of the respondents in Dilijan and 24 in Tumanyan
expressed their satisfaction with the same service in their respective communities. In
Tumanyan, slightly over half of the respondents reported that trash removal services were
not available in their communities (Chart 2.8). As it can be inferred from Chart 2.9, trash
cans are almost non-existent in the community of Tumanyan. Only about one third of the
35
respondents in Dilijan (32 percent) and Tatev (27 percent) were happy with the number of
trash cans in their communities.
Chart 2.8. Satisfaction with trash removal and cleanliness in the community

DK
Dilijan 29 20 48 3
Tatev 60 13 22 41
Chart 2.9. Satisfaction with the number of trash cans

DK
Dilijan 32 20 29 17 2
Tatev 27 22 28 23 1
Tumanyan 11 10 86 1
HEALTHCARE
Ninety one percent of the respondents in Tumanyan, 95 in Tatev, and another 95 in

Dilijan confirmed that either a health post (ambulatory) or polyclinic operated in their
settlements. The overwhelming majority of the respondents in Tatev and Dilijan, 87 and
86 percent respectively, also reported using the healthcare service inside their settlements
in case of a primary healthcare issue. Approximately half of the respondents in Tumanyan
admitted to doing so. Of the three communities, Tatev appears the happiest, as 71 percent
of its respondents said they were satisfied with the offered healthcare service. To
compare, approximately one third of the respondents in Dilijan and Tumanyan (33 percent
in each) perceived the healthcare service in their settlements as satisfactory (Chart 2.10).
36
Chart 2.10. Satisfaction with health care services in the settlement

DK
Dilijan 33 38 26 3
Tatev 71 17 8 13
Tumanyan 33 23 38 5 1
To sum up, the problem of roads both inside the settlements and between the settlements
remains a pervading major issue for all three communities causing public dissatisfaction.
Public transportation is another major concern for all the communities. In Dilijan, existing
public transportation system is mostly unsatisfactory; whereas in the settlements of Tatev
and Tumanyan, public transportation system is either non-existent or of low quality.
Existing trash removal services in Dilijan and Tatev leave much to be desired. In
Tumanyan, trash removal service is not accessible for half of the settlements. Health care
service is practically accessible in all areas of the three communities; however public
satisfaction with this service is low in Dilijan and Tumanyan.
Focus group discussions with community leaders, LSG, business, and civil society
representatives, as well as expert interviews, largely supported the survey results
regarding the state of infrastructure in Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan. In all communities,
the intra- and inter-settlement roads are poorly maintained. As one of the local experts in
Dilijan pointed out during the interview, “Roads are as poor as they were before
consolidation.” Participants of focus groups and interviews also complained about the poor
public transportation services. Even in those places where intra-community public
transportation exists (e.g. in Dilijan), the working hours and days of transportation
services are very limited. Many people have to use taxi services, which are not always
affordable. Poor roads and poor system of public transportation damage the rural
settlements, especially the remote ones, contributing to their isolation from social and
cultural life of the centers. According to local business representatives, poor infrastructure
also hinders business development within the communities.
Focus group discussions with community leaders and LSG representatives confirm that
trash removal is another serious issue in all three communities. Prior to consolidation,
only some local governments used to offer trash removal services. However, these
services were not delivered properly, nor systematically. The focus group participants
hope that the machinery and waste bins funded by the USAID project will enable the
communities to organize trash removal services efficiently. According to participants of
focus group discussions, street lighting is available in only a few settlements of Dilijan and
Tumanyan. In Tatev, only main streets have lighting.
Another major issue that emerged during the focus group discussions refers to poor
potable water supply systems, a problem relevant for all communities. For example,
participants of the focus groups with community leaders in Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan
37
talked about the outdated water supply systems in the communities, as well as lack of
access to potable water in rural settlements.
PRE-SCHOOL AND EXTRACURRICULAR EDUCATION
A majority of the respondents in Tumanyan (63 percent), and the overwhelming majority
in Tatev and Dilijan (80 and 83 percent, respectively) said there were kindergartens in
their settlements. As Charts 2.11, 2.12, and 2.13 show, compared to Dilijan and Tumanyan,
kindergartens in Tatev were in most disadvantageous state in terms of their physical
conditions, maintenance, and human resources. For example, only one third of the
respondents in Tatev were satisfied with the building conditions of their kindergartens,
and another one third was satisfied with heating in winter. For comparison, public
satisfaction with building conditions and heating of kindergartens in Dilijan and Tumanyan
was about twice as high (Charts 2.11 and 2.12). Similarly, the public satisfaction rate with
professional skills of the kindergarten staff in Tatev was 45 percent, while the same
statistics primed to 66 and 64 percent in the case of Dilijan and Tumanyan, respectively
(Chart 2.13).
Chart 2.11. Satisfaction with the building conditions of kindergartens in the

settlements
Satisfied Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied Not satisfied DK
Dilijan 78 12 3 7
Tatev 33 32 18 18
Tumanyan 68 16 7 9
Chart 2.12. Satisfaction with provision of adequate temperature/heating in

winter
Dilijan 73 8 6 13
Tatev 29 30 8 33
Tumanyan 67 19 1 13
Chart 2.13. Satisfaction with professional qualifications and skills of

teachers/nannies
38
Dilijan 66 11 2 21
Tatev 45 23 3 30
Tumanyan 64 15 1 20
The following two charts reveal the gloomy picture of extracurricular education in the
three communities. As Chart 2.14 shows, 87 percent of the respondents in Tatev and 65
percent in Tumanyan reported that no art school was available in their settlements. In this
respect, Dilijan is in a slightly advantageous state as the respondents reporting
unavailability of art schools in the community comprised only 36 percent. However, 40
percent of the Dilijan respondents were not satisfied with the quality of these schools. As
the Chart 2.15 shows, the situation with sport schools is even worse for Tatev and
Tumanyan, where 91 and 92 percent of the respondents, respectively, said that such
schools were not available in their communities. The percentage of those who reported
unavailability of sport schools in Dilijan was about thrice as low as in the other two
communities. Unlike the art schools in Dilijan, the sport schools in the same community
appear to be much more popular: over one third (35 percent) of the respondents in
Dilijan said they were satisfied with the quality of the sport schools.
Chart 2.14. Satisfaction with the quality of art schools

DK
Dilijan 4 9 40 36 12
Tatev 3 31 87 5
Tumanyan 4 6 19 65 6
Chart 2.15. Satisfaction with the quality of sport schools

DK
Dilijan 35 10 9 33 13
Tatev 1 5 2 91 1
Tumanyan 011 92 6
39
To sum up, the survey results demonstrate that pre-school education services are
available for the majority of families in Tumanyan and for the overwhelming majority of
families in Dilijan and Tatev. However, public satisfaction with the building conditions and
heating of the kindergartens is low in Tatev. The overwhelming majority of population in
Tatev and Tumanyan have no access to art schools and sport schools. In Dilijan, one third
of the community population is deprived of access. The quality of services offered by art
and sport schools in Dilijan remains largely dissatisfactory for its population.
Focus group discussions with community leaders from Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan,
mainly supported the survey findings. Focus group participants confirmed that, generally,
schools, kindergartens, and culture houses are in poor condition in all settlements and in
need of partial or full renovation and refurnishing. The attendance of children in
extracurricular activities, cultural and sports life of the educational/cultural settings, if
provided, is hindered by the lack of intra-community (inter-settlement) public
transportation as well as by the ability of households to pay for such engagement of their
children. Consolidation so far has not contributed to the improvement of the current
situation with pre-school and extracurricular education, except in some institutions where
extra staff was hired. Focus group participants also mentioned that the USAID support in
the sphere of education and culture is limited to some renovation works and
establishment of engineering/robotics laboratories in the relatively large schools.
40
CHAPTER 3. CIVIC
INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL SELF-
GOVERNANCE
This section of the report describes the levels of self-reported civil involvement in local
self-governance as well as public perceptions of how well LSGs encourage civic
participation in the resolution of local issues in the communities of Dilijan, Tatev and
Tumanyan.
PARTICIPATING IN COMMUNITY LIFE, CONTACTING LSG

REPRESENTATIVES
As Chart 3.1 shows, the vast majority (71 percent) of survey participants in all three
communities said that they were not involved in the life of their communities. Only 22
percent stated they were involved either to some extent or significantly. Involvement in
the Tatev community was comparatively higher (35 percent), than in Dilijan (19 percent)
and Tumanyan (14 percent). The vast majority of respondents in Dilijan (80 percent) and
Tumanyan (70 percent) reported no involvement in community life at all. Of note, survey
results show that the rates of involvement of respondents in the age group 26-55 were
significantly higher (for general socio-demographic characteristics of Dilijan, Tumanyan,
and Tatev communities see Appendix 8).
Chart 3.1. Involvement into the community life
Tumanyan Tatev Dilijan
80
70
48
28
17 17 16
7 6 8
2 1
Significantly Involved to Not involved at DK

involved some extent all
In the course of the 12 months preceding the survey, approximately one third (32
percent) of respondents said they had faced a problem which, in their opinion, could be
solved by the LSG bodies. Of those 32 percent, 80 percent had raised their problem
either in written or verbal form. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported that their
41
problems were solved; 38 percent – not solved; the remaining respondents were still
waiting for a resolution. Eighty percent of the unsolved problems were from Dilijan.
Notably, 86 percent of respondents who had not raised a problem were from Dilijan. The
main reason for not raising a problem, according to the 61 percent of those who had not
done so in all three communities, was the confidence that the problem would not be
solved. Of note, about 5 percent of respondents in Dilijan, mentioned, that the reason for
not raising a problem was the absence of any opportunity to meet the LSG
representatives. Interestingly, no respondent in Tumanyan or Tatev mentioned this option.
RESPONDING TO CITIZENS’ VOICES
Majority (53 percent) of participants responded “don’t know” when asked how quickly the
LSG bodies respond to questions raised by the citizens. Fourteen percent of respondents
mentioned that the LSG bodies don’t respond at all, and the remaining 33 percent pointed
out that the response period can last from three days up to several months. About two
thirds (67 percent) of respondents mentioned that it is not difficult to raise a question
before the LSGs.
The survey also asked respondents to assess the influence of a number of factors on the
resolution of issues raised by citizens before their LSG bodies. As Chart 3.2 shows, the
three most powerful factors are as follows: social status (50 percent), relatives (48
percent), and connections (45 percent). For all factors, there was a high rate of “don’t
know” responses.
Chart 3.2 To what extent can the following factors help the citizens to solve
their problems via LSG bodies?
Helps Does not help
50 48 45 27 26 19
Social Relatives Connections Professional Civic ativity Bribe
status/position skills
Note: For this question a 1-5 scale was used where 1 means “Does not help at all” and 5-Greatly helps.
Those who answered “Don’t know” or pointed to no effect (choosing 3 in a 1-5 scale) were excluded from
the calculations
When asked to assess the Citizen Service Offices (CSO) in their respective communities,
31 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the quality of the CSO activities,
10 percent were not satisfied, and 30 percent chose the neutral “neither satisfied nor
unsatisfied” answer. Slightly less than one third (29 percent) of respondents did not know
how to assess the CSOs, a sign that citizens lack information about the activities of these
newly formed institutions. The highest level of satisfaction (33 percent) with the SCO
activities was reported in Tumanyan (Chart 3.3).
42
Chart 3.3 Satisfaction with the work of Citizen Service Offices
Dilijan 31 35 12 22
Tatev 28 27 3 42
Sixty-four percent of respondents said that in the 12 months prior to the survey,
representatives of their LSG bodies had not met with the community residents to respond
to their questions and to discuss community issues. About one fourth (23 percent)
confirmed that such meetings had occurred, whereas the remaining 13 percent responded
that they “don’t know” whether meetings had taken place. Of the respondents who
confirmed the occurrence of such meetings, 56 percent had themselves taken part in
them. The vast majority (70 percent) of those who knew about the meetings but had not
participated were female respondents, who explained their non-participation by the fact
that they had been busy or that the male representatives of their families had participated
in meetings.
Slightly more than half (55 percent) of the respondents reported that some of the raised
issues were solved during these meetings, 19 percent said that the meetings had no
results, and 15 percent did not know what the results of these meetings were (Chart 3.4)
Chart 3.4 How many of those issues were solved by LSGs?
All Majority Some None DK
Dilijan 2 7 62 22 7
Tatev -2 56 2 40
Tumanyan 6 20 34 29 11
Note: The calculation was done only for those who stated that there were meetings with the LSG bodies in
their communities
Only 19 percent of respondents were of the opinion that the LSGs encouraged citizen
participation in local council sessions; 55 percent of respondents answered that they
“don’t know”, and the remaining 24 percent responded that the LSGs did not encourage
the citizens’ participation. Citizens’ evaluations of the LSGs efforts to encourage civic
participation in the sessions are presented in Chart 3.5. As the data shows, in Dilijan and
Tumanyan the vast majority of respondents were not able to assess the LSG’s. Meanwhile,
the same communities stand out in that the share of those who confirmed the
encouragement of civic participation by the LSG bodies was the highest (22 percent in
Dilijan and 16 percent in Tumanyan).
43
Chart 3.5 Encouragement of citizen participation in local council (Avagani) sessions by
LSGs?
Greatly encourage 4 3 2 Do not encourage at all DK
Dilijan 8 11 5
Tatev 8 23 17 7
Tumanyan 1 7 9 1
The survey participants were also asked to evaluate the effectiveness of their local council
sessions in terms of discussing community budget, budget re-allocations, community
projects and planning. Interestingly, 73 percent of the respondents responded that they
“don’t know” and 18 percent evaluated the council sessions as not effective. In Tatev and
Dilijan, no respondent assessed the Avagani sessions as “very effective”; only 3 percent of
the Tumanyan respondents did so (Chart 3.6).
Chart 3.4 Assess the effectiveness of your local council (Avagani) sessions
82
73
62
20
3 9 11 3 10 7 7 11
-
Very effective 3 2 Not effective DK

at all
To sum up, the survey results, civic participation in the local government in Dilijan,
Tumanyan and Tatev is low. Public participation in community life is insignificant. Although
the majority of residents believe it is not hard to raise an issue before local government,
their levels of contacting local government representatives are low. This might be
explained by the public belief that local authorities are not impartial in resolution of
citizens’ issues. Survey results also show that generally LSGs do not take initiative to meet
with community residents and listen to their opinions. LSGs do not encourage citizens’
participation in sessions of local councils either.
Participants of focus group discussions generally accepted the fact that civic involvement in
local government in Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev is very low and that some measures
44
should be taken to enhance it. According to focus group participants, citizens’ involvement
in local decision-making and public administration can be achieved through raising public
awareness of community issues or activating local civil society institutions. In addition, as
one of the experts noted during their interview, the LSGs have the important
“homework” of changing people’s mindset so that they take ownership in local issues.
Some of the focus group participants and interviewees also mentioned that after
consolidation LSGs took measures to enhance electronic participation of the public in
local government. For example, all local council sessions are broadcast live so the
community can see how well representatives carry out their obligations. Moreover, LSGs
send their electronic announcements to settlements where operators in CSOs post them
in visible places.
45
CHAPTER 4. CITIZEN
PERCEPTIONS AND
AWARENESS OF LSG
This chapter of the report discusses public perceptions of the LSGs in Dilijan, Tumanyan,
and Tatev. In particular, it presents the levels of public trust toward LSGs, public
assessments of the LSG work, as well as public awareness of LSG activities.
PUBLIC TRUST, TRANSPARENCY AND THE IMPACT OF LSGS
On average only one third of those interviewed demonstrated confidence toward the LSG
bodies (38 percent). Only 20 percent of respondents trusted the head of their municipality
(Marzpet), and 40 percent answered that they “don’t know” whether or not they could be
trusted. Most of all, people trusted the heads of their immediate settlement
administrations (36 percent) while the heads of newly consolidated communities enjoyed
slightly less public trust (33 percent). The level of trust towards local councils (Avagani)
was 23 percent with 30 percent of participants responding that they “don’t know”.
Only 36 percent of respondents trusted the residents of the newly consolidated

communities, and 37 percent trusted the residents of the neighboring communities. Forty-
eight percent of respondents were not able to decide whether or not they trust the
residents of their community and 15 percent responded that they did not trust them. The
situation is exactly the same with the level of trust towards the residents of the
neighboring communities-48 percent were not able to decide whether or not they trust
them and 15 percent did not trust. Chart 4.1 demonstrates the combined level of trust
towards LSGs in targeted consolidated communities. As one can see, that the lowest level
of trust is in Dilijan, which is the biggest community, and the highest is in Tatev, the
difference being statistically significant (p-value<0.05).
Chart 4.5. Level of trust towards LSGs
5 21 21 8
4 29 38 25
3 13 34 30
2 13 6 28
1 24 2 10
38
A new “level (combined) of trust towards LSGs” was created using the variables defining the level of thrust towards
the head of the community, the local community council (Avagani) and the head of administration of the settlement
46
Note: In the chart “1” means fully distrust and “5”- fully trust
Only 7 percent of respondents said that the level of transparency of their LSGs was high
and 21 percent said the level of transparency was low. Another 34 percent opted for the
neutral “neither high, nor low” answer, while the remaining 28 percent chose “don’t
know”. The majority of respondents (53 percent) were of the opinion that during the
preceding 1-2 years the activities of their LSGs had not changed. While 14 percent
responded that it had improved, 19 percent said that it had deteriorated. In particular, 21
percent of the respondents from Tumanyan were of the opinion that activities of their
LSG deteriorated. More than half of the respondents in Dilijan (58 percent) and Tatev (52
percent) stated that LSG activities did not change during the aforementioned period.
When evaluating the level of skills of the LSG bodies, only 16 percent of respondents
assessed it as high, 37 percent thought that it was neither low nor high, and 14 percent
thought it was low. Another 32 percent responded that they “don’t know”. The survey
asked respondents to rate the influence of a number of
individuals/organizations/organizations on decisions of local councils. As Chart 4.2 shows,
the most influential individual seems to be the head of the settlement administration (42
percent), followed by the regional government (40 percent). As in previous questions, the
share of “don’t know” answers in this question is quite large, signaling the lack of public
interest towards the LSG issues.
Chart 4.6. Influence of organizations/individuals/groups on decisions of the

local council (Avagani)
Very much 4 3 2 Not at all DK
Head of Settlement's administration 20 25 7 7

Regional/marz government 18 19 7 9
President 12 12 8 18
Central Government 14 13 7 17
Parliamen 10 13 8 20
International organizations 11 12 5 16
Influential/respected individuals of community 16 19 7 13
Diaspora Armenians (philanthropists) 11 13 5 19
As for the influence of LSG decisions over daily life in the community, Chart 4.3 shows
that only 7 percent of respondents stated that the influence was very strong and 22
percent somehow strong; 22 percent stated that LSG decisions did not influence their
lives. There are statistically significant differences between the answers of respondents
from the three communities. Whereas only 15 percent of respondents in Tatev mentioned
the influence (strong or some) of LSG decisions on their life, in Dilijan and Tumanyan this
number was 31 percent and 34 percent, respectively. The number of those who avoided
answering (responded “don’t know”) this question was high as well.
47
Chart 4.3. The influence of LSG decisions on community life
25
22 22
12 12
7
Have Have Have Have weak Have no DK

strong some neither influence influence
influence influence weak nor at all
strong
influence
48
AWARENESS OF LSG ACTIVITIES
Survey participants were asked whether they were familiar with at least one decision
passed by the LSG during the 12 months prior to the survey. As Chart 4.4 shows, 89
percent of respondents in all three communities answered that they had never heard
about any such decision. In the three communities, the amount of respondents who
answered “no” was comparable: 91 percent in Dilijan, 89 percent in Tatev, and 89 percent
in Tumanyan. Similarly, 91 percent of overall respondents said that in the 12 months prior
to the survey they had not heard any announcement made by the LSG bodies inviting the
public to monitor regulations adopted by the LSGs or to participate in discussions of LSG
decisions/regulations. Ninety percent of respondents did not know how local taxes,
property rates, fees, fines and licenses were determined by the LSGs. In addition, 41
percent of respondents did not know any community council member.
Chart 7.4 Awareness of LSG activities
No Yes
bodies passed by
licenses inviting your LSG
decisions
fees, fines your LSG decision)
the public bodies in
11
the… months?
Tumanyan
how local heard of with the
property announce (at least
the past
Do you have you Are you
familiar
one
12
Tatev 15
Dilijan 9
Tumanyan 10
rates, ment by
ed by the monitor
months,
past 12
In the
ever
an
to
Tatev 18
Dilijan 5
determin
Tumanyan 11
taxes,
know
LSG?
and
are
Tatev 17
Dilijan 7
Of note, there was a strong statistically significant relationship among the awareness
variables: Those who were familiar with the LSG decisions were also aware of the LSG
announcements and of how the LSG determined local taxes, fees, etc.
All LSGs have their official webpages; however, 43 percent of respondents did not know
that their communities had an official webpage. Forty-five percent of respondents had
never visited the official websites of their communities, though they knew about the
existence of such pages. Three percent of respondents reported visiting official webpages
quite often (every day or 1-2 times a week) and 7 percent rarely (1-2 times per month or
year). The biggest segments of those who did not know of existence of the official
webpage (62 percent) and of those who visited the webpage regularly (5 percent) were
among the Tatev respondents. In Tumanyan, only 1 percent visited the webpage
frequently; 57 percent and 38 percent of the respondents did not know about the
webpage and never visited it, respectively.
Fifty-four percent of respondents had never followed the LSG discussions over the
Internet; only 5 percent stated that they had done so. Forty-one percent of the
respondents even did not know that there was such a possibility. For example, in the
Tumanyan community the majority (61 percent) of participants did not know about this
option.
49
In regards to the LSG representatives’ communication with media representatives, an
overall 25 percent of respondents said that representatives of their LSG never
communicate with the media, 15 percent said that they do it rarely, and 33 percent said
that they do it often or from time to time. There is a statistically significant difference
between the three communities. In Tumanyan, the LSG representatives communicate with
the media the most, whereas in Dilijan the LSG representatives communicate with the
media the least.
To sum up the quantitative data, levels of public trust enjoyed by local authorities in
Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev are not high. Low levels of public trust could be explained by
low public assessments of transparency and impact of LSG activities. Public awareness of
various aspects of LSG activities is low as well. Although LSGs employ the Internet to give
publicity to their work, the rate of public usage of the Internet for getting information
about the LSGs is insignificant.
Focus group discussions and expert interviews shed some light on the impact of
community consolidation on public perceptions of the LSG activities. As some participants
of focus group discussions with LSG representatives mentioned, public trust toward local
authorities has declined after consolidation because positive public expectations from
consolidation have not been met. On the other hand, as some of the community heads
mentioned during their interviews, consolidation has resulted in more transparent and
accountable work of LSGs. For example, the local council sessions are broadcast live and
citizens have the chance to monitor the activities of the councils. Community information
services assure transparency of the LSGs by posting important information in specially
designated places. Meanwhile, the community heads accepted that there is still a lack of
public interest toward LSG activities and that not all community members have access to
the Internet.
50
CHAPTER 5. PUBLIC
PERCEPTIONS OF THE
COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATION
REFORMS
This Chapter discusses public perceptions regarding community consolidation reforms in
the three communities. It presents levels of public satisfaction with the impact
consolidation has made so far on communities. It also examines levels of public
expectations regarding the possible effects of consolidation in the near future.
How do the residents of Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev rate the overall effect of
consolidation on their respective communities so far? Less than one third (28 percent) of
respondents in all three communities said that the effect was positive, and 9 percent,
negative; the largest share of the respondents (52 percent) said that consolidation
produced no changes in their community. As Chart 5.1 shows, the community of
Tumanyan has the largest share of respondents (36 percent) who think of consolidation
positively, and the smallest share (35 percent) of respondents who see no community
transformations brought about by the consolidation processes.
Chart 5.1. Impact of the community consolidation on communities
Positively No change Negatively DK
Dilijan 28 55 8 9
Tatev 19 58 16 7
Tumanyan 36 35 7 23
For example, when asked if the maintenance of roads between community settlements had
improved in the preceding 1-2 years, 73 percent of respondents answered “no” whereas
only 23 percent gave a positive answer. Chart 5.2 shows that the largest share of “yes”
answers comes from Dilijan, signaling very low levels of improvement in intra-community
roads in Tumanyan and Tatev.
Chart 5.2. Improvement of intra-community roads during the past 1-2 years
51
Yes No NA DK
Dilijan 33 63 05
Tatev 5 93 03
Tumanyan 8 85 33
Survey participants were also asked to express their opinion regarding the prospects of
consolidation-associated changes in the near future. When asked whether the
improvement in quality of LSG services was likely in the coming 3-4 years, only 13 percent
of respondents in Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev said that such improvement was likely, 46
percent said it was unlikely, and 25 percent chose the neutral “neither likely, nor unlikely”
answer. Another 16 percent was undecided (responded “don’t know”). As Chart 5.3
shows, the largest share of respondents skeptical about improvement of LSG services in
the near future is in the Tumanyan sample (57 percent). The largest share of optimistically
disposed respondents is in the Tatev sample (20 percent).
Chart 5.3. Likelihood of improvement of LSG services in the coming 3-4 years
Likely Neither likely, nor unlikely Unlikely DK
Dilijan 26 44
Tatev 26 43
Tumanyan 19 57
As for the concrete services, only 16 percent of respondents in all three communities
thought it was likely that renovation of community roads would improve in the coming 3-4
years, almost half (45 percent) of respondents thought it was unlikely, and 30 percent
thought it neither likely nor unlikely. Another 9 percent were undecided (responded
“don’t know”). As Chart 5.4 shows, the largest share of respondents thinking
pessimistically on this issue are in Tumanyan (57 percent). The share of optimistic
respondents is largest in the Dilijan sample (18 percent).
52
Chart 5.4. Likelihood of improvement of road renovation services in the
coming 3-4 years
Likely Neither likely, nor unlikely Unlikely DK
Dilijan 32 40
Tatev 30 50
Tumanyan 23 57
As survey results show, pessimistic public expectations dominate also with respect to
other aspects of LSG activities. For example, only 8 percent of respondents in the three
communities thought it was likely that LSGs would resolve community issues in the near
future while 50 percent thought it was unlikely. Only 8 percent thought it was likely that a
significant number of new jobs would be created in the community while 66 percent
thought it was unlikely. Only 9 percent thought it was likely that LSGs would become
more accountable to citizens, and 46 percent thought it was unlikely.
To sum up, as survey results demonstrate, the majority of residents in Dilijan, Tumanyan
and Tatev think that consolidation reforms have produced either negative changes or no
changes at all in their communities. Generally, the populations of these communities have
not seen positive improvements in concrete spheres of public services delivered by local
governments in the past 1-2 years. The vast majority of residents in Dilijan, Tumanyan and
Tatev do not have positive expectations regarding the possible improvement of LSG work
either. They do not believe that local public services or public accountability of local
authorities will improve in the near future.
During focus group discussions, there was a consensus that there is a serious public
disillusion in Dilijan, Tumanyan, and Tatev, regarding how consolidation reforms work. As
one of the participants of focus groups with community leaders in Dilijan stated, high
expectations were created at the beginning of the consolidation process, but the real
results do not meet those expectations. In particular, none of the promises made during
the consolidation promotion campaign have been met, except for some fragmented
renovations in the community of Dilijan. The financial aid of USAID was a recurring topic
during the focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. For example, one of the
participants of a focus group with representatives of LSGs said that the acquisition of
machinery within USAID support program has so far been the only positive thing in the
process of consolidation, because the new machinery allows communities to address
infrastructure problems on their own. As one of the experts mentioned during an
interview, “other than the new machinery being acquired, no major changes have occurred
in the community. If you don’t remind people, they may not recall that they now live in
consolidated communities.”
The qualitative study also revealed some opinions on why public expectations have not
been met. For example, LSG representatives mentioned during a focus group discussion
that one and a half years is not enough time for the effects of consolidation to fully
materialize, especially given that the settlements were consolidated with an array of
53
problems in every sphere. During a focus group discussion with civil society
representatives, a participant opined that the positive or negative perception of
consolidation also depends on the work of settlement representatives (e.g. local council
members): if they are active, the results of consolidation will be seen; if not, then existing
little positive changes will remain in the shadow.
54
V. CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The RA Government views the community consolidation in Armenia as a means to
improve the delivery of public services via consolidation of human, financial, and technical
resources into more viable administrative units. The temporal comparison of budgets
revealed that per capita budgets in consolidated communities are lower than per capita
budgets in pre-consolidated settlements that now comprise the larger administrative units.
This situation will most probably restrict the local governments to initiate major
transformations in their communities.
Whereas the Government of Armenia has in fact not increased the financial support to
Dilijan, Tatev and Tumanyan, the USAID’s financial aid to the process of consolidation in
these communities inspires some hope. In particular, due to acquisitions of machinery and
equipment intended by the USAID project, the aforementioned communities can
immediately start the systematic delivery of some basic services, such as removal of
garbage or repair of intra-community unpaved roads. Other activities intended by the
project, such as improvement of the water supply system in Tatev, construction of
multipurpose bus stops in Dilijan, or improvement of public transportation in Tatev and
Tumanyan, will take a longer time to materialize. And this creates space for the end-line
evaluation.
As the reported results of the baseline evaluation indicated, the quality of roads in the
communities of Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan remains a major infrastructure concern.
Public transportation is another major issue that the communities face. Only 26 percent of
the respondents from Tumanyan were satisfied with street lighting, while the respondents
of Dilijan and Tatev were more satisfied in this regards. Of the three communities, Tatev
seems to be most advanced in terms of trash removal. The respondents from Tatev
appeared to be the most satisfied with the healthcare service as 71 percent expressed
satisfaction. To compare, approximately one third of the respondents in Dilijan and
Tumanyan (33 percent in each) perceived the healthcare service in their settlements as
satisfactory.
The survey results demonstrate that pre-school education services are available for the
majority of families in Tumanyan and for the overwhelming majority of families in Dilijan
and Tatev. However, public satisfaction with the building conditions and heating of the
kindergartens is low in Tatev. The overwhelming majority of population in Tatev and
Tumanyan have no access to art schools and sport schools. In Dilijan, one third of the
community population is deprived of access. The quality of services offered by art and
sport schools in Dilijan remains largely dissatisfactory for its population.
Civic participation in the local government in Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev is low. Public
participation in community life is insignificant. Although the majority of residents believe it
is not hard to raise an issuebefore the local government , their levels of contacting local
government representatives are low. This might be explained by the public belief that local
authorities are not impartial in resolution of citizens’ issues. Survey results also show that
generally LSGs do not take initiative to meet with community residents and listen to their
opinions. LSGs do not encourage citizens’ participation in sessions of local councils either.
According to focus group participants, citizens’ involvement in local decision-making and
public administration can be achieved through raising public awareness of community
55
issues or activating local civil society institutions. In addition,, the LSGs have the important
“homework” of changing people’s mindset so that they take ownership in local issues.
Levels of public trust in local authorities in Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev are not high. Low
levels of public trust could be explained by low public assessments of transparency and
impact of LSG activities. Public awareness of various aspects of LSG activities is low as
well. Although LSGs employ the Internet to give publicity to their work, the rate of public
usage of the Internet for getting information about the LSGs is insignificant.
Meanwhile, the community heads accepted that there is still a lack of public interest
toward LSG activities and that not all community members have access to the Internet.
Based on the findings of the evaluation, several recommendations can be made:
 Local authorities should look for additional sources of budget revenues to solve
the community issues and improve the quality of services. The premise of the
reform is that the savings resulted from reduced/optimized administrative staff
could then be applied to services and this has to be monitored further.
 The launch of services intended by TARA should be accelerated to cancel out any
public disillusions associated with the delay of these services.
 Serious and immediate measures should be taken to renovate inter-settlement
roads and public transportation which will provide residents of remote settlements
with access to services available only in community centers.
 LSGs should improve the transparency and accountability of their work, as well as
regularly listen to citizens’ voices. A more trustful local government will attract
more civic participation in local governance. Apart from broadcasting local council
sessions live, LSGs should make sure the community population is informed about
the sessions and has access to the Internet.
 LSGs should take measures toward creating realistic public expectations associated
with the consolidation reform and should clearly communicate even the slightest
achievements.
 Awareness campaign created high expectations: generally the attitude towards
reforms was expressed carefully but it is clear that the expectations were much
higher than the achieved results.
 The reforms should be clearly communicated to public.The problem here is that
the public expects immediate changes and they expect visible changes: road
enhancement and proper maintenance, regular and affordable public transportation,
renovated potable and irrigation water supply systems, regular garbage removal,
external lighting, etc.
56
VI. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: FDG GUIDE
Performance Evaluation of the

Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia
Focus Group Discussion Guide
On behalf of the United States Agency for International Development, CRRC is conducting a
performance evaluation of the Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA)
Project through household (HH) surveys in Dilijan, Tumanyan, and Tatev.
Objective:
 To reveal the economic implications of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded activities
related to the following:
o Renovation of inner community roads
o Garage Construction for agricultural and road renovation machinery
o Creation of equipped/renovated bus stops
o Establishment of markets on the crossroads between-communities
o Establishment of non-profit community organization for municipal capacity building
o Establishment of regular garbage collection in the community, improving sanitary conditions, cleaning
the roads and landscape
o Availability of transportation between communities
o Improvement in street lightening etc.
 To reveal opinions on the improvement of budget planning as supposed due to the community
consolidation, are there any possibilities for financial savings and improvement in community
infrastructures in this regard?
 To reveal opinions on the possible increase of income and number of Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) generated from the improvements of community services and infrastructures, are there any
present or possible initiatives that may contribute to the economic development?
 To discuss the increase in investments within the municipal/Local Self-Governance (LSG) services of the
selected communities
Participants. The FGDs will be mixed representing all three consolidated communities (Dilijan, Tumanyan
and Tatev) meaning that the CSO representatives and civic activists (may be CSO representatives) and
the business leaders from all of the three communities will participate. The number of participants should
be 8-10 on average per group. Three FGDs will be realized with the LSGs and municipality
representatives. FGDs with the LSGs and municipality representatives will assume engagement of the
municipality staff, as well as the council members and the staff in subsidiary municipal institutions (not
engaged in the Group 1, see table 1).
Table 1: The Composition and the Number of FGDs
Focus Groups # of FGDs to be realized

Group 1: Community leaders (settlements 3
heads, heads of educational settings)
Group 2: CSO representatives and civic 2
activists
Group 3: LSGs, municipality representatives, the 3
council members and the staff in subsidiary
municipal institutions
Group 4: Business representatives 2
Total # of FGs 10
57
Informed Consent: The FGD participants will be signing an informed consent form for their participation.
One copy of the form will remain with the participants and one with the FGD facilitator. The FGD
participants will be informed on the audio recording.
Demographic Data: It is important to gather anonymous demographic information on the FGD.
participants. Upon their arrival to the FGD venue they will be offered a simple form to be collected after
the discussion ends and archived along with the recordings.
Facilitator/Moderator. To realize an efficient FGD according skills and sound planning are needed.
FGD Guide: This is aimed at correct construction of the FGD and highlighting of the important-to-discuss
themes. However, it is nor mandatory to strictly follow the order of the listed questions and probes as it
is done with questionnaires. During the FGDs the facilitator encourages the participants to deeply reflect
on the themes, raise their own concerns, provide feedback to the others’ views etc.
Data Collection: FGD can be audio recorded, if the participants are not against this. Afterwards, the
recording will be transcribed for analytical proposes. The recordings will be kept in a safe place before
the transcription ends and may be destroyed after. The transcript will not contain any information that
may lead to an identification of the individuals with the thoughts they have voiced. The anonymity will be
strictly kept let alone the exceptional situations reinforced by law assuming disclosure of identities. The
participants sign a non-disclosure agreement.
FGD Place and Time: FGD may last for around two hours with possible short breaks and the participants
can feel free to move around and grab coffee. The participants have to be prior informed on the place
and time of the discussion as well as of its possible length.
58
Focus Group Discussions
Info Sheet and Consent Form
In the framework of the USAID funded performance evaluation of the Government of
Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA), the CRRC-
Armenia aims at realization of Focus Group Discussions in the consolidated communities
(Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev).
Aim:
 To reveal the economic effects of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded programs as
related to the following:
o Renovation of inner community roads
o Garage Construction for agricultural and road renovation machinery
o Creation of equipped/renovated bus stops
o Establishment of markets on the crossroads between-communities
o Establishment of non-profit community organization for municipal capacity building
o Establishment of regular garbage collection in the community, improving sanitary conditions, cleaning the
roads and landscape
o Assurance of transportation between communities
o Improvement in street lightening etc.
 To reveal opinions on the possible increase of income and number of SMEs generated from the
improvements of community services and infrastructures, are there any present or possible initiatives
that may contribute to the economic development?
 To discuss the increase in investments within the municipal/LSG services of the selected communities
I, _________________________________________ /first name, last name/ agree to participate in the

Focus group discussion organized by CRRC-Armenia in the framework of USAID funded performance
evaluation of the Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia
(TARA) project.
I understand that this interview will be anonymous, i.e. the corresponding audio recordings, transcripts and
reports will not contain information which would allow identifying the FG participants based on the
unique ideas expressed by them.
Duration: The Focus group discussion will last up to two hours.
Participation and withdrawal: My participation in this interview is voluntary. I can refuse to participate
or answer to the questions which would not be comfortable to me.
I have received a copy of this agreement (consent form).
____________________________ ________________________
Signature Date
59
Demographic Information Form
Please answer the following questions.
1. Your Age ______________
□ Refuse to Answer
2. Your Gender:
□ Male □ Female
3. Your Education
Primary (complete or incomplete) 1
Secondary (incomplete) 2
Secondary(complete) 3
Vocational 4
Higher education (incomplete) 5
Higher education (complete) 6
PhD 7
DK/RA 8
□ Refuse to answer
4. Your Main Occupation.

1. Community Leader
2. Head of an educational setting
3. Civil Society Organization Representative
4. Civic Activist
5. LSGs and municipality representative, municipality staff, council member and staff of subsidiary municipal
institutions
6. Business representative
7. Other (note) ______________
5. Please indicate the number of years in this occupation.

1. <one year
2. 1-2 years
3. 3-5 years
4. 6-10 years
5. >10 years
□ Refuse to Answer
6. Your Settlement __________________________________ □ Refuse to Answer
7. When was your community consolidated? _____________________ □ Do not know
Thank You
60
Discussion Guide
Greeting of the participants, introduction and instruction
Greeting: Thanks for willingness to participate at the FGD. We have asked you to participate because your
opinions are much valued. We realize that you are busy and are grateful for time provided.
Introduction: In the framework of the USAID funded performance evaluation of the Government of
Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA), the CRRC-Armenia aims
to conduct of Focus Group Discussions in the consolidated communities (Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev)
with community leaders, heads of different settings (libraries, kindergartens, cultural and extracurricular
educational etc.), and business representatives:
 To reveal the economic implications of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded programs
consolidation, are there any possibilities for financial savings and improvement in community infrastructures
in this regard?
 To reveal opinions on the possible increase of income and number of SMEs generated from the
improvements of community services and infrastructures, are there any present or possible initiatives that
may contribute to the economic development?
 To discuss the increase in investments within the municipal/LSG services of the selected communities
The FGD will last for not more than two hours. With your permission, I will be recording this discussion for
analytical and reporting proposes (if not against, turn the recorder on).
Anonymity: Despite the recording, I reassure that this discussion is anonymous. The recordings will be
saved in a safe place, afterwards will be destroyed.
FGD transcription does not contain information that may enable the individuals to be identified with the
thoughts they have voiced. Hence, please answer the questions honestly and with confidence and please do
not discuss the opinions of other participants elsewhere with other people. If there are any questions or
discussion items that you do not want to engage with, it is your right to refuse answering or discussing, and
yet please try to participate at the discussion as actively as possible.
Major rules:
 The most important thing is not to talk simultaneously so that not more than two people talk at a time. If
you still have the will to interrupt a person in any case we would very much appreciate if you could await
until a person has finished talking
 Remember that there are no right and wrong opinions
 It is not mandatory for you to talk in accord to a certain order
 Whenever you have something to say, please do. There are many participants at the discussion and at is
important for me to listen to all of your opinions.
 It is not always necessary for you to agree with an opinion of a different participant
 Any questions?
 Good, let us begin
For the beginning

 Please, introduce yourself.
61
Introductory Question
Let us think for a couple of minutes about the issues and challenges faced by your communities before the
consolidation process and afterwards. Are you ready to talk of your community experience and voice
opinions? Let us move forward.
Questions to LSGs, municipality representatives, the council members and the staff in subsidiary
municipal institutions
 What is your general opinion on the consolidation process of the communities? To what extent is it
justified or necessary?
 What was the effect (both positive and negative) of the consolidation in your community life so far?
 What basic changes have occurred in your community infrastructures and services (as referred to
educational, transportation within and between the communities, trash removal, street lightening etc.)
 And what was the effect of consolidation on the formation of the community business environment
(investments, new SMEs and employment places, markets etc.):
 How were the LSG functions changed after the consolidation of activities, how would you evaluate the
changes?
 What changes have occurred in your LSG budget based on the financial, human and other resource
mobilization?
 What financial savings have been made in your budgets based on the consolidation?
 And what was the effect of consolidation on the income of the community?
 What was the effect of consolidation on the volume of capital investments?
 Have you notices a positive move towards SMEs (increase in numbers/types, income of the SMEs etc.)
 What would you say on the programs realized by the USAID in your community? How would you assess
the efficiency of the latter?
 How did the USAID funded programs (establishment of non-profit community organization for municipal
capacity building, garbage collection, street lightening etc.) affect the LSG capacity building? Why?
 Now let us talk about your expectations linked to the consolidation of the communities. In the course of 3-
4 years what are your expectations be that positive or negative in regards to the community consolidation?
 How can the USAID funded programs be endured/followed up in your community (financial sources - state
budget, local taxes, investments etc.)?
 What issues/challenges would you mention as related to your community that are of first priority but still
there are no according means address/resolve those?
62
Questions to Community leaders (community heads, heads of educational settings)
 Please those who represent educational sphere, what educational/cultural institutions are you representing?
And a question to all, what is the condition of these settings, what are the main issues (related to human
resources, facilities etc.)?
 What would you say on the extracurricular activities, cultural and sports life of the educational/cultural
settings and of the community in broad (types of activities, human resources, publicity, facilities etc.)
 What is the support in side of the LSGs to educational-cultural settings of the community? And what is the
general support of the LSG to the community life – what would be the most vivid instances of this support?
 What is your engagement with the LSG bodies in regards to decision-making? Is it proved to be efficient?
 What has the community consolidation process given to your settlements’ social educational and social life?
Are there any economically vital points?
 How were your functions changed after the consolidation? How would you assess those changes?
 How are you getting informed on the LSG decisions and its activities?
 What would be your opinion on the USAID funded programs in your community? What were the major
benefits in regards to the educational/cultural settings and beyond?
 What was the effect of engineering laboratories establishes at schools on the educational/cultural life of the
community?
 How can the USAID funded programs be endured/followed up in your community (financial sources - state
budget, local taxes, investments etc.)?
 What are the prospects for the educational/cultural development of the communities, what support may
be of most importance, by whom?
 What are the prospects for the educational/cultural development of the communities, what support may
be of most importance, by whom?
 What are, as you can see it, the prospects for the economic development of the communities, what
support may be of most importance, by whom?
 And how can the educational/cultural settings contribute to the economic development of the community?
63
Questions to CSO representatives and civic activists
 Please note what CSOs/civic initiatives are you representing? What is the major scope of your activities?
What are the major issues/challenges within the sphere (financial, administrative, state assistance etc.)?
 How do LGS react to your activities? Are they supportive?
 What would you say in regards to the development of civic society within your community and what are
the prospects and associated issues/challenges?
 To what extent are you or your community public representatives aware of the community consolidation
process? Where are you getting informed? What is the public reaction as assessed by you?
 How did the LSG functions, activities change after the consolidation and what is your assessment of any
changes?
 And how was the LSG transparency and accountability changed? What effect does the consolidation have
on this?
 What negative or positive change has the consolidation brought to the community life so far?
 What major change has happened in the infrastructures and services of the community (in regards to the
educational/cultural life, inner and intra transportation, removal of trash, street lightening etc.) due to
consolidation?
 How would you describe your or community other public representatives’ participation at LSG decision-
making process? How active are the community general public representatives?
 How do you monitor the realization of LSG duties?
 What major issues would you signify in regards to the community (infrastructures and the quality of
services provided by the LSGs, the availability of the services for the public, public participation at the local
governance)?
 What are your expectations towards the consolidation in regards to the increase in quality and availability
of LSG services?
 What is worth more attention by the LSGs in their activities?
 What would you say in regards to the programs realized by the USAID in the community. How would you
evaluate the effectiveness of these?
 How can the USAID funded programs (directed to the improvement of the transportation, trash removal,
street lightening etc.) be endured/followed up in your community after the programs come to an end?
 What was the most significant effect, as you can see it, of the consolidation on the economic development
of the community/communities?
 How can the SCOs/civic initiatives boost the economic development process of the communities? What is
need for the economic development of the community?
64
Questions to business representatives
 Please note what business activities are you realizing in the community?
 What are the major issues/challenges in your community (financial, administrative, state support etc.)?
 What was the effect of consolidation on doing business in the community(ies)?
 What was the effect of consolidation on YOUR doing business in the community(ies)?
 What was the effect of consolidation on your business income?
 How do you sole any issues with the new/consolidated community leaders? Is the LSG supporting you in a
way?
 Do you observe any positive/negative changes in your LSG activities in the course of last 1-2 years?
 In the course of the upcoming 3-4 years, what are the positive expectations you may have from the
consolidation in the course of business environment?
 And what are the negative expectations in this regard?
 How can the USAID funded programs (directed to the improvement of the transportation, trash removal,
street lightening etc.) be endured/followed up in your community after the programs come to an end?
 What issues/challenges would you mention as related to your community that are of first priority but still
there are no according means address/resolve those?
 How would you describe your or community other business representatives’ participation at LSG decision-
making process? How active are the community business and other representatives in the community
management?
 How can, as you see it, the community businesses - SMEs contribute to the economic development of the
community? What is needed for the economic development and increase in the investments in the
community?
Closing Question
 In broad, how would you describe the prospective of the community consolidation program?
Closing
 Thank you for participation
 Our opinions are of utmost importance to our research
 Hope you enjoyed the discussion
 If there are any concerns remaining, please talk to me later
 Let me remind that in the reporting of our findings any opinion will maintain anonymous
 Please, leave the demographic data form with me before you leave
65
ANNEX 2: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE

Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia
Expert/In-depth Interview Protocol
On behalf of the United States Agency for International Development, CRRC is conducting a
performance evaluation of the Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA)
Project through household (HH) surveys in Dilijan, Tumanyan, and Tatev. The latter have to be
well aware of the first group of the consolidated communities, associated issues and the
respective territorial and administrative reforms realized by the GOAM and USAID. At least
seven experts are to participate at the interviews:
 Representatives of the LSGs of the Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev communities (3 experts),
 Representatives of community settings, municipalities, CSOs and business world from
Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev, other experts in the LSG field (3 experts),
 A representative of USAID Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and
Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA) program/consortium (an expert)
The aims are as followed:

 To reveal the economic implications of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded
programs
 To reveal opinions on the improvement of budget planning as supposed due to the
community consolidation, are there any possibilities for financial savings and improvement
in community infrastructures in this regard?
 To reveal opinions on the possible increase of income and number of SMEs generated from
the improvements of community services and infrastructures, are there any present or
possible initiatives that may contribute to the economic development?
 To discuss the increase in investments within the municipal/LSG services of the selected
communities
66
Expert/In-depth Interview
Info Sheet and Consent Form
In the framework of the USAID funded performance evaluation of the Government of
Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA), the CRRC-
Armenia aims at realization of expert/in-depth interviews with the experts in the field of LSG.
in the consolidated communities (Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev). The latter have to be well
aware of the first group of the consolidated communities, associated issues and the respective
territorial and administrative reforms realized by the GOAM and USAID. At least seven experts
are to participate at the interviews:
 Representatives of the LSGs of the Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev communities (3 experts),
 Representatives of community settings, municipalities, CSOs and business world from
Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev, other experts in the LSG field (3 experts),
 A representative of USAID Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and
Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA) program/consortium (an expert)
The aims are as followed:

 To reveal the economic effects of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded
programs
 To reveal opinions on the improvement of budget planning as supposed due to the
community consolidation, are there any possibilities for financial savings and improvement
in community infrastructures in this regard?
 To discuss the increase in investments within the municipal/LSG services of the selected
communities
I, _________________________________________ /first name, last name/ agree to participate in the in-

depth interview organized by the CRRC-Armenia in the framework of USAID funded performance evaluation
of the Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA).
I understand that this interview will be anonymous, i.e. the corresponding audio recordings, transcripts and
reports will NOT contain information which would allow identifying of the participants based on the ideas
expressed by them.
Duration: The interview will last about an hour.

Participation and withdrawal: My participation in this interview is voluntary. I can refuse to participate or
answer to the questions which would not be comfortable to me.
I have received a copy of this information sheet and consent form.

____________________________ ________________________
Signature Date
Introduction by the interviewer
67
Hello. Thanks for your willingness to participation at this interview. My name is [NAME,
SURNAME]. I am representing the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) – Armenia
Foundation, a non-profit organization, independent research organization. In the framework of the
USAID funded performance evaluation of the Government of Armenia’s (GOAM) Territorial and
Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA), the CRRC-Armenia aims at realization of expert/in-
depth interviews with the experts in the field of LSG: namely, with representatives of the LSGs of
the Dilijan, Tumanyan and Tatev communities and of the USAID Government of Armenia’s (GOAM)
Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA) program/consortium and with other
experts. The aim is as followed:
 To reveal the economic implications of the consolidation process and of the USAID funded
programs
 To reveal opinions on the improvement of adequate budget planning due to the community
 To discuss the increase in capital investments within the municipal/LSG services of the
selected communities
 To reveal other positive or negative effects of the consolidation process
You were asked to participate at this interview because your opinion is of utmost importance to us.
I understand that you are busy and thanks for your time invested.
Anonymity. Despite the recording, I assure that this interview is anonymous. The recordings are
to be kept in a safe place and after the transcription ends, will be destroyed.
The transcription in turn will not contain any information that may enable identification of the
interviewees with the thoughts they have voiced. Hence, please answer honestly and with
confidence. If there are any questions that you refuse to answer, it is your right, and yet your
opinion on all of the questions is of great importance to us.
This interview will last for around an hour. With your consent, I will be recording it for further
analytical and reporting proposes [interviewer. if yes, turn the recorder on].
Questions
1. Please tell me your opinion on the territorial and administrative reforms of

Armenia including the community consolidation. To what extent are these
justified and necessary?
2. What changes have occurred in the community(ies) due to the consolidation.

What effect has the consolidation had on the everyday life of the community?
3. What changes have occurred in the quality and availability of the infrastructures
and LSG provided services?
4. How did the consolidation affect LSG activities?
5. And how did the consolidation affect the business environment of the
community?
 What was the effect of consolidation on the investments in communities?
68
 Number and diversification of SMEs
 Job placements
 Business income/generation of income
 Other effects?
6. What was the effect of consolidation on the LSG budget?

 What cuts have been made to the LSG budget expenses due to the financial, human
and other resource consolidation?
 What financial savings have occurred in the LSG budget due to the consolidation?
 What was the effect of the community consolidation on the LSG income?
 What are the LSGs mostly spending their budget on?
 What issues/problems are there within the community that have to be addressed by
the LSGs but are not?
7. How were the LSG activities (quality, effectiveness, efficiency) changes due to
the consolidation? What is your assessment of the changes? Why?
 What was the effect of the consolidation on the accountability and

transparency of the LSG activities? How was this reflected? How did the
LSG accountability and transparency change after the consolidation?
 How does the LSG inform the community public representatives on its activities,
programs and decisions?
 To what extent are the community public representatives interested in and
participate at the decision-making and decision-discussing processes? To what extent
is their participation encouraged by the LSG representatives?
 And in the course of the upcoming 3-4 years how will the LSG accountability and
transparency change?
8. What would you opinion be on the LSG reforms not financed by the state?
 The USAID funded programs: what are/are to be the benefits of the programs?
 Renovation of inner community roads

 Creation of equipped/renovated bus stops
 Establishment of markets on the crossroads between-communities
 Establishment of non-profit community organization for municipal capacity
building
 Establishment of renovation centers for agricultural and road renovation
machinery
 Establishment of regular garbage collection in the community, improving
sanitary conditions, cleaning the roads and landscape
 Assurance of transportation between communities
 Improvement in street lightening etc.
 Support to the IT sector, i.e. creation of engineering laboratories
 Are there any other programs besides these that are not funded by the state?
10. In your opinion, how can the USAID funded programs be endured/followed up in
the community?
 Due to the growth of the community revenue: Effective system for tax collection;
Growth in state funding; Promotion of community business (SMEs creation) and
Agribusiness; Promotion of local and international investments; Promotion of
agriculture directed to overseas/abroad; Establishment of new technologies, particularly
in irrigation systems, drip irrigation; Development of agricultural trade organizations,
69
cooperatives and market infrastructure with family farming due to the use of intensive
technologies; Development of greenhouses; Development of knowledge-based
industries and creation of new jobs; Development of tourism and agro tourism etc.
 More efficient and goal-oriented management of the community budgets (according to
the RA 2014-2025 Strategic Plan for Prospective Development39); Assurance of financial
resources for the maintenance of the community infrastructures (roads within
communities, street lighting, trash removal etc.)
11. Now To conclude, let us talk about your expectations from the consolidation.
 In the course of the upcoming 3-4 years how will the community life of general
public representatives change?
 What expectations do you have in regards to the effects of consolidation on the
improvement of the quality and availability of LSG services?
Conclusion
 Thank you for participation
 Our opinions are of utmost importance to our research
 Hope you enjoyed the discussion
 Let me remind that in the reporting of our findings any opinion will maintain anonymous
39
RA Government (2014-2025) Strategic Plan for Prospective Development [Online] Available from:
http://www.gov.am/files/docs/1322.pdf [Accessed 21.04.2017].
70
ANNEX 3: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Illustrative indicators: # of mandatory public services available to citizens; # of public services that meet
the quality standards; # of community residents that received access to mandatory or enhanced
services; % of services delivered at the standard quality level across the entire cluster.
Questions to address Methodology
- To what extent do you feel that your community is clean (number of Analysis of the performance
potholes, trash cans, places the children can play, sanitation standards)? indicators enabling the realization
- Are you satisfied with the number of time the trash is removed? - Do of the end line survey.
you experience any difficulties in removing of the trash (from the The measures are to allow for
household, from the community)? further comparisons in respect to
- What type of pre-school and after-school educational services are the extent of changes over the
available in your community? What about the quality of these services period of time and their statistical
(number of teachers/trainers and students/attendants, etc.), heating, significance and effect sizes.
libraries)? Quantitative data analysis to enable
- What type of cultural activities do you have in your community (the revealing of the diversification of
cultural centers, activities to increase the cultural engagement of the access to services, service receipt
population, the organization of leisure)? (share of population) and
- What type of sport clubs/groups do you have in your community (the disaggregation of the HHs by
availability of sports grounds, sports education, and any other sports gender and consolidated
facilities)? community. Quantitative data
- Does your LSG properly organize inner- and outer-community analysis to enable appropriate and
transportation? Do you have proper transport infrastructures in place accurate interpretation and
(the roads are available, bridges constructed and safe, the public recommendation.
transportation is available)? Quantitative data to support and
- Do you have a health post/ambulatory in your community? Are you fulfill the qualitative data received
satisfied with the services provided? (Services available, sanitation and vice versa.
assured)?
- What is the situation with water supply and sanitation in your
community (the quality of the service)?
- What is the situation with landscaping in your community?
- What trade centers are nearby (available services, sanitation assured in
the trade centers and any food outlets)?
- Are you satisfied with the security in your community, especially in night
time? Handling (security of public buildings, night lightning, etc.) -
- What is the situation with the cemetery maintenance in your
community?
- What is the situation with maintenance of residential and non-residential
premises in your community? Are you satisfied with physical
infrastructures of these premises and heating?
Note: The listed questions need further operationalization, assessment scales
have to be agreed. All of the services are to be assessed in terms of their quality
by measuring of the availability and satisfaction rates.
Illustrative indicators: % citizens who believe local authorities exercise their functions/responsibilities in
a transparent, accountable, and responsive manner; # of citizen initiatives considered and/or addressed
by LSG; % citizens who participated in civic activities, e.g. budget hearing, town-hall meeting, council
session, petition signing, etc.
- To what extent does the central authority; the regional authority; the Analysis of the performance
parliament representatives; the president influence the community indicators enabling the realization of
related decision-making process? the end line survey.
- To what extent do the LSG decisions affect the community life? The measures are to allow for further
- Is it easy or difficult to raise any concerns? comparisons in respect to the extent
During the last 6 months, have you addressed/raised any questions and of changes over the period of time
what was the outcome? and their statistical significance and
During the last 6 months have the LSG representatives met or in a way effect sizes.
addressed any public concerns? What solutions have been proposed? Quantitative data analysis to enable
71
- How operative is the feedback of the LSG towards the public revealing of the diversity of opinions
concerns? Do you find think that your community leader and council and disaggregation of the HH by
members are supportive and encourage participation in council gender and consolidated community.
meetings? Quantitative data analysis to enable
- Assess the efficiency of the LSG meetings, budget appropriate and accurate
discussions/relocations, program discussions and planning interpretation and recommendation.
How would you evaluate the level of transparency/reporting of the Quantitative data to support and fulfill
LSG, the level of information (also on budget) provided to the the qualitative data received and vice
community? versa.
- Are the LSG representatives open to media inquiries? - -
- To what extent do you trust: the community leader, the council
members, subsidiary municipal services?
- Note: The listed questions need further operationalization, assessment
scales have to be agreed.
Illustrative indicators :# and quality of delegated services, % of citizens who are satisfied with the
delegated services, % of citizens who believe local authorities exercise their functions/responsibilities in
a transparent, accountable, and responsive manner; % of local tax collection by LSGs and disbursement
of collected funds/taxes.
- Are you satisfied with the quality of the environmental projects Analysis of the performance
funded by the state budget in your community (if any)? indicators enabling the realization of
- Are you satisfied with the veterinary service in your community (if the end line survey.
any)? The measures are to allow for further
- Are you satisfied with the quality and sped of the Civil Acts comparisons in respect to the extent
Registration Office in your community/region? of changes over the period of time
- Are you aware of local taxes by LSGs, will you deem the payment and and their statistical significance and
collection of the taxes as efficient to improve services in your effect sizes.
community? Do you think this process is transparent and accountable? Quantitative data analysis to enable
- Note: The listed questions need further operationalization, assessment revealing of the diversity of opinions
scales have to be agreed. and disaggregation of the HHs by
gender and consolidated community.
Quantitative data analysis to enable
appropriate and accurate
interpretation and recommendation.
Quantitative data to support and fulfill
the qualitative data received and vice
versa.
72
ANNEX 4: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Performance Evaluation of the Territorial

And Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA) Project
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Household (HH) ID |____|____|____|____|

2. Interviewer Code |___|___|
3. Settlement Code |___|___| [INTERVIEWER! PLEASE MENTION THE SETTLEMENT CODE
FROM THE CARD]
Date of Interview (day/month) |____|____|.|____|____|

Time Interview Started (hour/minute) |____|____|:|____|____|
Hello! My name is [name, surname]. I represent the Caucasus Research Resource Centers-Armenia
foundation, which is a non-profit independent research center. On behalf of the United States
Agency for International Development, CRRC is conducting a performance evaluation of the
Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA) Project through household (HH) surveys
in Dilijan, Tumanyan, and Tatev. The goal of this survey is to assess the level of access to and quality
of services provided by local self-governments (LSGs), community residents’ perceptions about
reforms implemented in their communities, as well as their participation in the local governance.
Your household has been randomly selected among other HHs in your community/settlement, and it
is very important that you participate in this survey to ensure reliability of data gathered through this
survey. The information you will be providing will be interpreted/presented in a summarized way,
exclusively for research purposes. The interview will take approximately 35-40 minutes, depending
on the size of your HH. I will need your help to identify the adult household member I will be
interviewing. This selection should be done according to a special procedure that ensures random
selection of the respondent. It’s very important that we follow certain steps while identifying this
member of the household. Let’s talk about your household. By “household” we mean people
currently living with you most of the time, regardless of their legal place of residence, and who share
income and expenses. I would like to ask you to tell me only about the members, who currently live
with you, i.e. spend at least 4 nights per week in this dwelling.
DK – Don’t know (code: -1) N/A – Not applicable/Not available (code: 99)
RA – Refuse to answer (code: -2)
4. Please tell me, according to the definition provided, how many people, including you, live
currently in your household? [INTERVIEWER! WRITE DOWN THE NUMBER.]
|____|____| PEOPLE
(Don’t -1 NON-
know) RESPONSE
(Refuse to -2
answer)
73
5. And how many of these people are adults (age 18 and older)? [INTERVIEWER! WRITE
DOWN THE NUMBER.]
|____|____| ADULT PEOPLE
(Don’t -1 NON-
know) RESPONSE
(Refuse to -2
answer)
Please list the age of all adult male members of your household, starting with the oldest one. Thank
you! [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE PROVIDED INFORMATION IN COLUMNS “Name,”
“Gender” AND “Date of Birth” OF TABLE 5 BELOW.]
TABLE 5
# Name Gender Date of Birth (day/month/year) Selected HH
Member
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
[INTERVIEWER! IN THE COLUMN ‘’Selected HH Member’’ OF TABLE 5 PLEASE WRITE ‘1’ IN

THE ROW CORRESPONDING TO THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHOSE BIRTHDAY IS FIRST
APPROACHING, AND CONTINUE THE INTERVIEW WITH THAT HH MEMBER.]
[INTERVIEWER! IF THE SAMPLED HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IS NOT AT HOME AND WILL
NOT BE BACK FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS (DURING THE PERIOD OF FIELDWORK),
THANK THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AND DOCUMENT NON-RESPONSE IN THE
INTERVIEWER FORM (CODE 8).]
[INTERVIEWER! IF THE SAMPLED HOUSEHOLD MEMBER REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE SURVEY, THANK THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AND DOCUMENT NON-RESPONSE IN
THE INTERVIEWER FORM (CODE 8).]
[INTERVIEWER! IF THE SAMPLED HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IS NOT AT HOME BUT WILL BE
BACK SOON, ARRANGE A MEETING DURING THE NEXT VISIT TO HH.]
6. Tell me, please, the name of your community.
___________________________________
[INTERVIEWER! IF THE RESPONDENT CORRECTLY MENTIONS THE NAME OF
COMMUNITY, I.E. IF HE/SHE MENTIONS THE NAME OF CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY,
CIRCLE NUMBER ‘1’ BELOW, OTHERWISE (IF HE/SHE MENTIONS THE NAME OF OLD
COMMUNITY), PLEASE CIRCLE NUMBER ‘0’ BELOW.]
74
1 The name of consolidated community was mentioned
0 The name of old community was mentioned [INTERVIEWER! PLEASE INFORM THE
RESPONDENT ABOUT THE NEW/CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY AND EXPLAIN THAT
AFTERWARDS BY SAYING ‘YOUR COMMUNITY’ WE WILL BE REFERRING TO THE
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY, AND EXPLAIN THE TERMS ‘SETTLEMENT’ AND
‘COMMUNITY”.]
7. Are you informed about the consolidation of communities?

Yes 1
No 0 →9
8. Please mention the year when your community was consolidated.

__________
9. Do you know the head of your new/consolidated community?
Yes 1
No 0 →11
10. Please mention the name of the head of your community.

___________________________________________________
11. Your local community council (Avagani) consists of N members [INTERVIEWER!
PLEASE MENTION THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEMBERS – 15 IN
DILIJAN, 11 IN TATEV, 9 IN TUMANYAN.] Could you tell me how many of those council
members you know?
None Less than half Half More than half All DK
1 2 3 4 5 -1
PART 1. QUALITY OF AND ACCESS TO SERVICES/INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE

COMMUNITY
Within this survey we will be discussing some questions on the consolidation of
communities and some questions refer not only to your consolidated community,
which includes several settlements, but also to your immediate settlement. Let’s
discuss what services are provided to you and how satisfied you are with the quality of
those services. Please note that we are speaking about the current situation.
1.1 [CARD 1] Please tell me how satisfied you are with the following
services/infrastructure in your settlement. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means
‘not satisfied at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘completely satisfied’. [INTERVIEWER! IF A
SERVICE/INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SETTLEMENT, PLEASE MENTION
THE CODE ‘99’.] [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
1. Maintenance of roads in your settlement 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1

2. Maintenance of roads between settlements in your 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
community (excluding highways)
3. Maintenance of buildings under LSGs (kinder gardens, 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
administrative buildings, etc.)
4. Services of the Civil service office 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
5. Trash removal, cleanliness in community 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
75
6. Public transportation in the community 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
7. Night lighting in the streets of settlement 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
8. Veterinary service 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
9. Civil status acts registration service 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
10. Trade centers/shops 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
11. Garages for agricultural and road renovation machinery 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
12. Equipped/renovated bus stations 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
13. Renovation services for agricultural and road maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
machinery
14. Landscape gardening, availability of public parks, rest zones 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
15. Healthcare services 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
16. Public security/discipline protection and security in the 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
community, especially at night
17. Maintenance of monuments 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
18. Maintenance of cemeteries 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
19. Maintenance and operation of community libraries 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
20. Promotion of economic activity 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
21. Organization of cultural events in the community 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
22. Maintenance/renovation of roofs and entrances in multi- 1 2 3 4 5 99 -1
apartment buildings
1.2 [CARD 2] How well or badly do you think your LSG bodies implement the following
procedures? [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
[1. Very badly; 2.Fairly badly; 3. Neither badly, nor well; 4. Fairly well; 5. Very well] 99-Not
available/not implemented
1. Informing the community residents about the activities of 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
the LSG bodies
2. Providing community residents with information about 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
community budget
3. Informing the community residents on the planned 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
infrastructure changes (building bridges, buildings, etc.)
4. Involving residents in local authority decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
5. Targeted and fair spending of community revenue 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
6. Consultation with community residents about utilization, 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
rent and sales of public resources (such as land, forests,
buildings, roads, parks, monuments, etc.)
7. Ensuring transparency in granting various licenses in the 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
sphere of trade and services
8. Ensuring transparency in procurement, e.g. conducting 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
tenders
9. Overseeing trade centers’ activities 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
10. Protection of forests 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
11. Renovation of buildings in the community 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
12. Landscape gardening 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
13. Care and protection of public rest areas 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
1.3 Are there pre-school educational institutions (kinder gardens) in your settlement?
Yes 1
No 0 →1.4
76
DK -1 →1.4
1.3a [CARD 1] How satisfied are you with the following qualities of pre-school
educational institutions (kinder gardens) in your settlement? Please rate the qualities of
pre-school educational institutions only under LSGs. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’
means ‘not satisfied at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘completely satisfied’. [INTERVIEWER! READ
LOADLY.WRITE THE CODE FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
1. The number of teachers/nannies 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2. Professional qualifications /skills of teachers/nannies 1 2 3 4 5 -1
3. Building conditions 1 2 3 4 5 -1
4. Provision of adequate temperature/heating in winter 1 2 3 4 5 -1
5. Hygiene, cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 -1
6. Feeding for kids 1 2 3 4 5 -1
7. Organization of sleep for kids, including availability of 1 2 3 4 5 -1
bedding
8. Quality of playground 1 2 3 4 5 -1
9. Other (please specify) ___________________ 1 2 3 4 5 -1
1.4 Is there a healthcare service (health post, ambulatory or polyclinic) in your

settlement?
Yes 1 (skip 1.4d)
No 0 →1.4d
DK -1 →1.4d
1.4a Whenever you experience a PRIMARY healthcare issue, do you MOSTLY use
healthcare service (health post, ambulatory or polyclinic) in your settlement or outside
of it?
Inside of the settlement 1
Outside of the settlement (except Yerevan) 2
Yerevan 3
None 4
DK -1
RA -2
1.4b Whenever you experience a SERIOUS healthcare issue, do you MOSTLY use
healthcare service (health post, ambulatory or polyclinic) in your settlement or outside
of it?
Inside of the settlement 1
Outside of the settlement (except Yerevan) 2
Yerevan 3
None 4
DK -1
RA -2
1.4c [CARD 1] How satisfied are you with the following qualities of healthcare services
in your settlement? Please rate the qualities of pre-school educational settings only under
LSGs. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘not satisfied at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘completely
satisfied’. [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
77
1. Availability of doctor(s) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2. Availability of nurse(es) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
3. Availability of narrow specialists 1 2 3 4 5 -1
4. Professionalism of specialists/doctors/nurses 1 2 3 4 5 -1
5. Hygiene, cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 -1
6. Availability of first aid medicines 1 2 3 4 5 -1
7. Availability of medical equipment 1 2 3 4 5 -1
8. Speed of providing medical care 1 2 3 4 5 -1
9. Other (please specify) ___________________ 1 2 3 4 5 -1
1.5 [CARD 1] How satisfied are you with the following qualities of after-school
educational and cultural services in your settlement? Please rate the qualities of after-
school educational settings only under LSGs. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means
‘not satisfied at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘completely satisfied’. [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE
FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
1. Culture club/house 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
2. Library 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
3. Art school 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
4. Music school 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
5. Sport school 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
6. Playground, stadium 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
7. Cinema/theater 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
8. Other after-school educational and cultural services 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
(please specify)
1.6 [CARD 1] In general, how satisfied are you with the following qualities of sanitary
situation in your community? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘not satisfied at
all’ and ‘5’ – ‘completely satisfied’. [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE FROM THE SHOW
CARD.]
1. Number of trash cans 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
2. Frequency of trash removal 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
3. Cleanliness of community territory 1 2 3 4 5 -1 99
PART 2: LSGs: Citizen perceptions, attitudes and trust.

2.1 [CARD 3] How much do you trust the following people/bodies? Please use a scale of
1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘Do not trust at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘Fully trust’. [INTERVIEWER! WRITE
THE CODE FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
1. Head of the community 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2. Local community council (Avagani) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
3. Head of regional/marz administration (“Marzpet”) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
4. Residents of settlements in the new (consolidated) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
community
5. Head of administration of your immediate settlement 1 2 3 4 5 -1
6. Residents of neighboring communities 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2.2 [CARD 4] How much influence the following organizations/individuals/ groups have
on decisions of the local council (Avagani) regarding the issues of your community?
78
Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘’Not at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘Very much.
[INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE FROM THE SHOW CARD.]
President of the country 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Central government 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Armenian Parliament 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Regional/marz government (marzpetaran) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Head of settlement’s administration 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Influential/respected individuals of community 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Diaspora Armenians (philanthropists) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
International organizations 1 2 3 4 5 -1
Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2.3 How much do the LSG decisions influence the life in your community?
[INTERVIEWER! ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY.]
Have no influence at all 1
Have weak influence 2
Have neither weak nor strong influence 3
Have some influence 4
Have strong influence 5
DK -1
2.4 Let us discuss your awareness of operations of LSG bodies in the past 12 months.
Yes No DK
1. Are you familiar with the decisions (at least one decision) passed by 1 0 -1
your LSG bodies in the past 12 months?
2. In the past 12 months, have you ever heard of an announcement by 1 0 -1
your LSG bodies inviting the public to monitor the regulations accepted
by them or to participate in the discussion of their decisions/regulations?
3. Do you know how local taxes, property rates, fees, fines and licenses 1 0 -1
are determined by the LSG?
2.5 How often do your LSG representatives communicate with (provide briefings to)
media to present/discuss community issues or events.
Very often 1
Often 2
From case to case 3
Seldom 4
Never 5
DK -1
2.6 How often do you visit the official webpage of your LSG?
Never visited 0
1-2 times per year 1
1-2 times per month 2
Every week 3
Every day 4
DK -1
79
I didn’t know that the LSG has an official webpage 88
2.7 Have you ever followed LSG sessions/discussions over the Internet?
Yes 1
No 0
DK -1
I didn’t know that it is possible to follow LSG sessions over the Internet. 99
2.8 LSGs which share or provide information on their activities, budgets and decisions
are regarded as ‘transparent’. Overall how would you assess the transparency of your
LSG body?
Very low Somewhat Neither low nor Somewhat high Very high DK
low high
1 2 3 4 5 -1
2.9 How did the activities of your LSG change in the past 1-2 years?
Significantly Deteriorated Did not change Improved Significantly DK
deteriorated improved
1 2 3 4 5 -1
2.10 How would you evaluate the professional skills of your LSG bodies?
Very low Low Neither low, High Very high DK
nor high
1 2 3 4 5 -1
2.11 In general, how satisfied are you with the activities of your LSG?
Not satisfied at Completely DK
all satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 -1
PART 3. Civil activity, participation in self-governance

3.1 How would you evaluate your involvement into the community life?
Not involved at all 1
Involved to some extent 2
Significantly involved 3
DK -1
RA -2
3.2 In the past 12 months have you had any problems which could have been solved by
your LSG?
Yes 1
No 0 →3.6
3.3 Did you raise those concerns/problems in front of your LSG?
Yes, I raised verbally. 1 →3.5
Yes, I raised in a written way. 2 →3.5
Yes, I raised both verbally and in a written way. 3 →3.5
80
Yes, I raised through the official LSG website. 4 →3.5
Yes, I raised through Facebook or through other official online platform. 5 →3.5
No, I did not raise. 0
3.4 What is the main reason that you did not raise your problem(s) in front of your
LSG? [INTERVIEWER! ACCEPT ONE ANSWER ONLY.]
I thought my problem would not be solved. 1
I had a concern that my problem would not be effectively solved. 2
I did not have an opportunity to meet with LSG representatives. 3
I tried to solve the problem by myself. 4 →3.6
Other /please specify/ 5
DK -1
RA -2
3.5 What was the outcome of raising your problem in front of your LSG?
No response received yet. 1
The problem is under the discussion now. 2
The problem was solved. 3
The problem was not solved. 4
3.6 How easy it is to raise concerns in front of your LSG?
Very easy 1
Easy 2
Neither easy, nor difficult 3
Difficult 4
Very difficult 5
DK -1
3.6a [CARD 1] Overall, how satisfied are you with the work of your community Citizen
Service Office? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘not satisfied at all’ and ‘5’ –
‘completely satisfied’.
Not satisfied at all Completely satisfied DK
1 2 3 4 5 -1
3.7 [CARD 5] To what extent can the following factors help the citizens to solve their
problems via LSG bodies? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘does not help at all’ and
‘5’ – ‘greatly helps’.
1. Connections 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2. Bribe 1 2 3 4 5 -1
3. Social status/position 1 2 3 4 5 -1
4. Civic activity 1 2 3 4 5 -1
5. Professional skills 1 2 3 4 5 -1
6. Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
3.8 How fast do your LSG bodies respond on the issues raised by citizens?
81
Within three days 1
Within a week 2
Within a month 3
Within several months 4
They do not respond at all 5
DK -1
3.9 Have the LSG bodies met with the community residents in the past 12 months to
respond to their questions and discuss suggestions on solving community issues?
Yes 1
No 0 →3.13
DK -1 →3.13
3.10. How many of those issues were solved by LSGs? [INTERVIEWER! ACCEPT ONE
ANSWER ONLY.]
None 1
Some 2
Majority 3
All 4
DK -1
3.11 Did you participate in those meetings with LSGs?
Yes 1 →3.13
No 0
3.12 Why didn’t you participate?

__________________________________________________________________________
3.13 To what extent do the LSGs encourage citizen participation in local council
(Avagani) sessions? Please use a a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘Do not encourage at all’ and
‘5’ – ‘Greatly encourage’.
Do not encourage at Greatly encourage DK
all
1 2 3 4 5 -1
3.14 [CARD 6] Please assess the effectiveness of your local council (Avagani) sessions in
terms of discussing community budget, budget re-allocations, community projects and
planning. Please use a a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘Not effective at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘Very
effective’.
Not effective at all Very effective DK
1 2 3 4 5 -1
PART4. Implemented LSG Reforms: citizen knowledge, attitudes and expectations.

4.1 Do you know that there are local taxes (land tax, property tax) determined by
LSGs, which are transferred to your community budget?
Yes 1
82
No 0 →4.5
4.3 Where/how do you pay those local taxes? [INTERVIEWER! ACCEPT ALL POSSIBLE
ANSWERS.]
In the bank. 1
In citizens service office. 2
In post office. 3
Directly paid to tax collector. 4
Paid electronically. 5
I do not pay taxes. 6
Other (please specify)__________________ 7
4.6 Do you know the approximate size of your community budget for the year 2016?
Please use the following scale:
0-100 million AMD 1
101-200 million AMD 2
401 million AMD and higher 5
DK -1
4.7 Do you know where the LSG bodies of your community direct the revenue
generated from local taxes, fees, fines and licenses?
Yes 1
No 0 →4.9
4.8 If YES, please list some of those directions. [INTERVIEWER! DO NOT READ
LOADLY! ACCEPT UP TO 5 ANSWERS.]
1 Paying LSG salaries and other administrative expenses
2 Maintenance of roads in the community
3 Maintenance of roads between communities
4 Maintenance of community buildings
5 Trash removal, community cleaning
6 Public transportation in the community
7 Public transportation between the communities
8 Night lighting in the streets
9 Agricultural expenditures
10 Nature protection, cleaning of community territories
11 Landscape gardening
12 Healthcare, including maintenance of health facilities
13 Security in the community, especially at night
14 Maintenance of monuments
15 Maintenance of cemeteries
16 Maintenance of libraries
17 Community development projects
18 Culture – maintenance of community culture settings
19 Maintenance of schools and kinder gardens
83
20 Payment of social benefits
21 Procurement of goods and services
22 Provision of financial/material aid to community residents
23 LSG bodies embezzle those funds
24 Other (please specify)
4.9 [CARD 7] Overall, in what ways has the community consolidation process affected
your community?
Very negatively Negatively No change Positively Very positively DK
1 2 3 4 5 -1
4.10 Have the following infrastructures and services improved in your settlement
during the past 1-2 years?
Yes No DK N/A
1. Maintenance of roads in your settlement 1 0 -1 99
2. Maintenance of roads between the settlements of your community 1 0 -1 99
(excluding highways)
3. Maintenance of community buildings (kinder gardens, administrative 1 0 -1 99
buildings, etc.)
4. Services of the Civil service office 1 0 -1 99
5. Trash removal, community cleaning 1 0 -1 99
6. Public transportation in the community 1 0 -1 99
7. Night lighting in the streets 1 0 -1 99
8. Veterinary services 1 0 -1 99
9. Civil acts registration service 1 0 -1 99
10. Trade centers/shops 1 0 -1 99
11. Garages for agricultural and road renovation machinery 1 0 -1 99
12. Renovated/equipped public transportation stations 1 0 -1 99
13. Renovation services for agricultural and road maintenance machinery 1 0 -1 99
14. Landscape gardening, availability of public parks, rest zones 1 0 -1 99
15. Healthcare services 1 0 -1 99
16. Public order protection and security in the community, especially at night 1 0 -1 99
17. Maintenance of monuments 1 0 -1 99
18. Maintenance of cemeteries 1 0 -1 99
19. Maintenance of libraries 1 0 -1 99
20. Promotion of economic activities 1 0 -1 99
21. Organization of cultural events in the community 1 0 -1 99
22. Maintenance/renovation of roofs and entrances in multi-apartment buildings 1 0 -1 99
4.11 [CARD 8] How likely are the following changes associated with the consolidation
of communities to happen in the coming 3-4 years? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’
means ‘Not likely at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘Very likely’. [INTERVIEWER! WRITE THE CODE FROM THE
SHOW CARD.]
1. Improvement of quality of LSG services 1 2 3 4 5 -1
2. Renovation of community roads 1 2 3 4 5 -1
3. Renovation of community buildings under LSGs (kinder gardens, 1 2 3 4 5 -1
administrative buildings, etc.)
4. The work of LSGs will become more transparent 1 2 3 4 5 -1
84
5. The LSGs will become more accountable to their electorate 1 2 3 4 5 -1
6. A significant number of new jobs will be created in the community 1 2 3 4 5 -1
7. LSGs will solve the community issues 1 2 3 4 5 -1
8. There will be more possibilities to meet with LSG heads and solve 1 2 3 4 5 -1
issues
9. The volume of benefits and material aid provided by LSGs will 1 2 3 4 5 -1
increase
10. Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 -1
4.12 Do you know about the projects implemented by USAID in your community?
Yes 1
No 0 →5.1
4.13 Please indicate the sources of your information on the projects implemented by
USAID in your community. [INTERVIEWER! ACCEPT ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS.]
Print media 1
Community leader 2
Neighbors, relatives 3
Official LSG website 4
Logos, info boards 5
Other sources (please specify) 6
DK -1
4.14 Please list the projects implemented by USAID in your community.

[INTERVIEWER! DO NOT READ LOADLY! ACCEPT ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS.]
1. Night lighting in the streets
2. Provision of agricultural and road maintenance machinery
3. Organization of trash removal
4. Renovation of roads in the community
5. Construction/renovation of garages for agricultural and road renovation machinery
6. Construction of multifunctional public transportation stations
7. Establishing markets on the cross-roads between communities
8. Establishing renovation centers for agricultural and road maintenance machinery
9. Provision of regular public transportation between communities
10. Support to IT sector – establishment of engineering labs in schools
11. Ecology trainings
12. Establishment of greenhouses and promotion of associated activities
13. Renovation of water supply system
14. Procurement of agricultural machinery
15. Other (please specify)
PART 5. Respondents’ social and demographic profile.

5.1 What is your current marital status?
Single /Not married 1
Married 2
Divorced 3
85
Separated 4
Widow/widower 5
RA -2
5.2 How many kids do you have?

None 0
I have ------- kids (please mention the number)
5.3 [CARD 9] Who else lives in this household? [INTERVIEWER! SHOW CARD!
ACCEPT ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS.]
Nobody (I live alone) 1

Wife/husband 2
Partner (boyfriend/girlfriend) 3
Kid(s) 4
My (or my partner’s) parents 5
Grand parents 6
Brother(s), sister(s) 7
Friend(s), relative(s) 8
Other(s) / (please specify) 9
5.4 How many cars do you have in your household?

____ (number) Cars
DK -1
RA -2
5.5 Do you plan to move to another community in Armenia?
Yes 1
No 0 →5.8
DK -1 →5.8
5.6 Which community do you plan to move to (in Armenia)?
_______________________
5.7 Which are the main reasons for moving to another community in Armenia?
[INTERVIEWER! DO NOT READ LOADLY! ACCEPT UP TO 3 ANSWERS.]
Willingness to improve life quality 1
Willingness to receive better education 2
Better opportunities for finding a job 3
Better opportunities for starting a business 4
Willingness to be closer to people who are important for me 5
Difficult socioeconomic conditions 6
Dissatisfaction with LSG services 7
Willingness for self-realization and implementation of my ideas 8
For better future of my kids 9
Other (please specify) 10
DK/RA -1/-2
86
5.8 Do you plan to leave Armenia (forever)?
Definitely yes 1
Probably yes 2
Probably no 3 → 5.10
Definitely no 4 → 5.10
DK -1
RA -2
5.9 What country do you plan to move to?

Russian Federation 1
USA 2
France 3
Germany 4
Other country (please specify) 5
DK -1
RA -2
5.10 What is the highest level of education you have accomplished?

Have not attended primary school 1
Primary (complete or incomplete) 2
Secondary (incomplete) 3
Secondary(complete) 4
Vocational 5
Higher education (incomplete) 6
Higher education (complete) 7
PhD 8
DK/RA -1/-2
5.11 [CARD 10] How would you evaluate your IT skills as per the list below? Please use
a a scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ means ‘No skills at all’ and ‘5’ – ‘Advanced skills’.
[INTERVIEWER! SHOW CARD.]
Ability to write an Email 1 2 3 4 5
Ability to explore the Internet, including the 1→ 2 3 4 5
ability to search for some information. 5.13
5.12 How often do you use the Internet?

Never/ almost never 1
Several times per month 2
Once per week 3
2-3 times per week 4
Almost every day 5
DK -1
5.13 Which of the following better describes your employment status?

Paid employee having a written contract/order 1→ 5.15
Paid employee with a verbal agreement 2→ 5.15
Employer (owner of a business who permanently hires staff) 3→ 5.15
Self-employed in agriculture 4→ 5.15
87
Self-employed in other sphere(s) 5→ 5.15
Family member working with no pay 6→ 5.15
Member of a production/consumer co-operative 7→ 5.15
I do not work 8
Other (please specify) 9→ 5.15
RA -2
5.14 Please explain the reason why you do not work.

I am a student 1
I run a household 2
I am a pensioner (age/health/other) 3
I care for kids/sick relatives 4
I have a disability 5
I cannot find a job 6
DK -1
RA -2
5.15 Many households obtain income from several sources. I will read out several
possible sources of income and please, tell me whether your household had monetary
income from each of these sources in the last 12 months. Please think about the
income of all members of your household. [INTERVIEWER! ACCEPT ONE ANSWER IN
EACH ROW.]
Yes No
1. Money from family members, relatives, or friends living elsewhere in this 1 0
country.
2. Money from family members, relatives, or friends living in another country. 1 0
3. Cash sales from agricultural products. 1 0
4. Aggregated earned income (salary) of all household members, except sales of 1 0
agricultural products.
5. Pensions and government benefits. 1 0
6. Income from renting of property, vehicles, or appliances. 1 0
7. Income from sale of property, vehicles, or appliances. 1 0
8. Interest or earnings on deposits or securities. 1 0
9. Trade, except agricultural products 1 0
10. Provision of taxi and/or other services 1 0
11. Other sources of income. 1 0
DK -1
RA -2
5.16 [CARD 12] Which of the following statements best describes the current
economic situation of your household? [INTERVIEWER! SHOW CARD! ACCEPT ONLY
ONE ANSWER.]
Money is not enough for food. 1

Money is enough for food only, but not for clothes. 2
Money is enough for food and clothes, but not enough for expensive durables like a 3
refrigerator or washing machine.
We can afford to buy some expensive durables like a refrigerator or washing machine. 4
We can afford to buy expensive durables, travel abroad in summer, buy a car, but we 5
88
cannot afford to buy an apartment.
We can even afford to buy an apartment. 6
DK -1
RA -2
5.17 There are a number of ethnic groups living in Armenia. Which ethnic group do you
consider yourself a part of?
Armenian 1
Yezid 2
Russian 3
Assyrian 4
Greek 5
Kurd 6
Time Interview Ended (hour/minute) |____|____|:|____|____|
THANK YOU
Please, note that according to the established code of conduct, some interviews will be checked by
our company some time after the interview. It is likely that your interview will not be checked, but I
would like to ask your telephone number (home phone number, mobile phone number) in case you
are selected for a back check. The only aim of such a check is to make sure that the interviews were
conducted according to the required standards of quality. In any case, please note that all your
answers will remain strictly confidential.
Please, give your home phone number or mobile phone number. I guarantee that they will be used
only for contacting you.
Whom to ask Area Code / Mobile Operator’s Phone number

Code
ANNEX 5: PHYSICAL VERIFICATION CARD
Check List
For physical verification of community services and infrastructure
Services Comments
1. Please verify and describe the current conditions of
roads in the community.
- Are the main roads in the community covered by
hard cover (asphalt, concrete, etc.)? If so, please
mention.
- Are those hard covers smooth, with no holes? If no,
are those holes too many?
- When were those roads asphalted last time?
2. Please verify and describe the current conditions of roads
89
with other communities.
- Are the roads in covered by hard cover (asphalt,
concrete, etc.)? If so, please mention.
- Are those hard covers smooth, with no holes? If no,
are those holes too many?
- When were those roads asphalted last time?
3. Please verify and describe the current conditions of
buildings under LSG – kinder gardens, schools,
administrative buildings, etc.
- Are those buildings in good physical conditions?
- When were those renovated the last time?
4. Please verify and describe the current state of trash
removal in the community.
- Are there trash boxes on the main roads?
- How often is trash removed in those places?
- Are the main community roads clean, free of
garbage?
- Are children’s play zones and any public squares
clean, free of garbage?
5. Is there a functional public transportation in the
community?
- If yes, how regularly it operates?
- What kind of buses operate in the community?
- Describe the quality/state of (micro)buses
6. Is there a functional public transportation between this
and other communities (center of marz)?
- If yes, how regularly it operates?
- What kind of buses operate in the community?
Describe the quality/state of buses
7. Do the main roads of community have lighting?

8. Is there veterinary service in the community?
9. Are there bus stops in the community?
- Please describe its conditions.
10. Are there automobile renovation centers in the
community?
11. Is there health care service in the community? Please
describe it.
12. Is there a cemetery in the community? If yes, please
describe how it is maintained by the LSG.
13. Describe the extra-curricular educational-cultural
possibilities at the community
14. Describe the sports possibilities at the community
Other important points

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
90
ANNEX 6: RANDOM WALK PROTOCOL

Territorial and Administrative Reform of Armenia (TARA)
Random Walk Protocol
 Step size: The step size for each sampled settlement is to be provided to
interviewers. The appropriate step size is to be calculated as part of the survey
design, based on the settlement size and the number of target interviews.
 Starting household number: The starting household number for each
settlement is to be provided to interviewers. The starting household number is to
be a randomly selected number between one and the step size, and is to be
generated as part of the sample design when step size calculations are made.
 Target dwellings: Buildings that are not used as dwellings should not be included
in the count. This means that buildings such as stores, schools and hospitals should
not be included in the interviewer’s household count. It also means that residential
dwellings which are clearly uninhabited should not be included in the household
count.
 Starting point: The starting point is to be the polling station used during the most
recent elections.
 Walking pattern: The interviewer should begin with his/her back to the polling
station, turn right (left), and begin counting households in that direction. The
interviewer should make every turn to the right (left). If he/she gets back to the
starting point and has not visited the required number of households, then he/she
should make one move straight instead of right (left) and make each turn to the right
(left) after that.
 Dead ends: If the road dead-ends the interviewer should turn around to the left
(right) and then resume the random walk pattern of right turns.
 Apartment buildings:
o The interviewer should face the apartment building and choose the last
entrance visible to his/her right.
o The interviewer should go to the top floor, stand with his/her back to the
staircase, and begin counting households with the first household to the right
of the stairs.
o Upon exiting the entrance, the interviewer should turn to the right and move
around the apartment building in a clockwise direction.
o He/she should enter every fifth entrance in the apartment building. If an
entrance is connected to another entrance which has already been included
in the count, that entrance should not be included in the count.
o Within each sampled entrance, the random walk protocol from the last
sampled entrance should be resumed. For example, if the step size for
91
counting households is 12 and the last household from the previously
sampled entrance was counted as 6, then the first household on the top floor
to the right of the stairs should be counted as number 7.
o If the next dwelling is another apartment block, the interviewer should begin
the entrance selection procedure there from the beginning. He/she only
needs to remember the number of the last household that he/she counted in
the last sampled entrance.
 Uninhabited dwellings: We wish to target only households where people reside
and to exclude uninhabited dwellings, which don’t include members of our target
population. Thus, the response code for “uninhabited dwelling” has been removed
from the interview result variables. If the interviewer makes a first attempt and a
dwelling is either (i) obviously uninhabited, or (ii) neighbors can confirm that the
dwelling is uninhabited, then the interviewer should exclude it from being counted
on the random walk and should put the next household in its place. If there is any
uncertainty regarding the household’s inhabitance, the interviewer must mark “no
one home” and return for second and third attempts.
 Settlement boundaries: The step sizes for each sampled settlement will be
calculated conservatively in order to account for uncertainty in the number of
households that each settlement contains. However, it is still possible that
interviewers will encounter settlement boundaries before completing the target
number of interviews. If the interviewer is unsure of the settlement boundary lines,
he/she should continue with the random walk instructions. If the interviewer
encounters an obvious settlement boundary, he/she may treat it as a “dead-end” and
follow the random walk instructions for dead-ends.
 Controlling for male or female headed HHs: the interviewers should follow
the supervisor’s instructions on inclusion of the female headed HHs in the survey.
92
Table 1: Sample with starting points, directions, and random walk size
N of N of
NAME Random start Step size Direction
HHs QQ
1 Tumanyan 513 54 3rd street, 2nd building, House of Culture 5 5 left
2 Marts 154 18 School building 3 4 left
3 Karinj 148 18 School building, 7th street, 15 building 1 4 left
4 Lorut 227 24 School building 2 4 right
5 Shamut 64 12 School building 2 3 left
6 Atan 76 12 House of Culture 3 3 left
7 Ahnidzor 75 12 House of Culture, 2nd streetm 3rd building 2 3 right
1 Khot 200 21 House of Culture 3 5 left
2 Halidzor 106 12 School building 2 5 left
3 Harzhis 160 17 House of Culture 4 5 right
4 Shinuhayr 527 55 School building 5 5 left
5 Svarants 74 12 Community Center 1 4 right
6 Tatev 190 20 Community Center 2 4 left
7 Tandzatap 24 12 House of Culture 1 2 left
8 Kashuni 10 10 Municipality house 1 1 right
1 Dilijan 4572 62 No. 3 Kindergarten Moldavian 46 2 5 left
2 Dilijan 4572 62 Kalinini 237 a 4 5 right
3 Dilijan 4572 61 No. 6 primary school, Kamo 131 4 5 right
4 Dilijan 4572 61 House of Culture, Miasnikyan 53 5 5 left
5 Dilijan 4572 61 State college, Usanoghakan 70 3 5 left
6 Dilijan 4572 61 Cinema Shahumyan 12/1 3 5 left
7 Dilijan 4572 61 School building 2 5 right
8 Haghartsin 845 45 House of Culture, 1st st. # 54 1 5 left
9 Haghartsin 845 44 N1, School building 3 5 left
10 Teghut 331 35 Community Center, 1 st 3 3 right
11 Gosh 386 20 School building, Verin Gosh 4 3 left
93
12 Gosh 386 20 School building, Nerqin Gosh 4 3 left
13 Aghavnavank 98 13 School building, ist street, 53 building 3 4 left
14 Khachardzan 94 13 N1 House of Culture 3 4 left
15 Hovk 157 18 School building 3 street 43 building 4 3 right
94
ANNEX 7: LOCAL PLEBISCITES IN THE COMMUNITIES OF DILIJAN,
TATEV, AND TUMANYAN
Community Name Yes No

Tumanyan
Tumanyan 576 36
Atan 42 55
Ahnidzor 33 40
Lorut 125 115
Shamut 19 64
Qarinj 113 83
Marts 99 31
Tatev
Tatev 389 21
Shinuhayr 1079 15
Halidzor 173 38
Harjis 304 30
Svarants 140 2
Khot 365 12
Tandzatap 47 0
Qashuni 16 0
Dilijan
Dilijan 3317 344
Aghavnavank 140 17
Gosh 103 172
Teghut 167 222
Khachardzan 94 27
Haghartzin 243 444
Hovq 76 65
95
ANNEX 8. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY
PARTICIPANTS
Overall, 795 respondents took part in this survey: 150 respondents (19 percent) represent
the consolidated community of Tumanyan, 149 (19 percent) are from the consolidated
community of Tatev, and the remaining 496 are from the consolidated community of Dilijan
(62 percent). Sixty-nine percent of all participants are female and 31 percent are male; 99.6
percent of the respondents are ethnic Armenians.
Survey respondents are of different educational levels: 44 percent of the respondents have
completed secondary education, 10 percent partially completed their secondary education,
27 percent have attained vocational education, 13 percent have completed higher education,
2 percent left higher education incomplete, 3 percent attended primary school only, and 1
percent did not attend any primary school.
Respondents represent the following age groups: 8 percent are 18 to 25 years old, 19
percent are 26 to 35, 17 percent are 36 to 45, 14 percent are 46 to 55, 19 percent are 56
to 65, and 22 percent are aged above 66.
Seventy-one percent of the respondents are married, 9 percent are single/not married, 3
percent are divorced/ separated and 17 percent are widowed.
Thirteen percent of the respondents do not have kids, while 37 percent have 3 kids, 36
percent have 2, 13 percent have 4, 10 percent have one kid, 3 percent have 5, and 1 percent
have 6 kids.
Participants were asked to share any plans on moving to another community in Armenia.
Eighteen percent of the respondents think of moving to another community in Armenia.
More than half of respondents who intend to move to another community in Armenia
mentioned Yerevan as a final destination, though some mentioned other towns/cities as
well, “where a job can be found.” The main reasons to change the place of residency are to
improve quality of life, to create a better future for kids, as well as find better job
opportunities.
Overall, 18 percent of the respondents expressed willingness to leave Armenia forever: half
of them are definite in their decision, while another half responded that they will probably
leave Armenia permanently. Seventy-seven percent of those who showed an interest in
leaving Armenia have mentioned the Russian Federation as a final destination and 7 percent
were thinking of moving to Germany. A number of other countries have also been
mentioned by survey participants such as USA, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc. as their
final destination. Nevertheless, 78 percent answered “definitely no” when asked
“Do you plan to leave Armenia (forever)?”\
Forty-nine percent of survey respondents never/almost never use the Internet, while 33
percent use it every day. Sixty-four percent of those who never use the Internet belong to
the 56 and higher age group, 71 percent of the respondents have no skills at all /almost no
skills of e-mailing, while 19 percent have some or advanced skills of e-mailing; 56 percent of
the respondents have no skills at all /almost no skills of Internet usage and 27 percent have
some or advanced skills of Internet usage.
96
As for employment status, 59 percent of respondents reported that they do not work,
while the rest are employed in some way (paid employee with written contract- 16 percent,
paid employee with a verbal agreement- 2 percent, self-employed in agriculture or other
sphere- 20 percent, etc.). Thirty-six percent of unemployed respondents as a reason for
unemployment answered “I cannot find a job.” The remaining respondents include the
retired people (37 percent), students (2 percent), those who run a household (14 percent).
Of those who do not work, 65 percent are from Dilijan (Note: the number of respondents
from Dilijan is three times as large as that of respondents from Tumanyan or Tatev). While
looking at the gender distribution, 76 percent of unemployed respondents are female (Note:
female respondents made up 69 percent of survey participants).
Thirty-seven percent of survey participants said that they could not afford to buy food, 32
percent could afford to buy food but not clothes, 25 percent could afford to buy both food
and clothes, but not durables like a refrigerator or a washing machine. Only 3 percent could
afford to buy expensive durables like a refrigerator or a washing machine but not an
apartment, and the rest said they could afford to buy anything.
97
ANNEX 9: BUDGET BREAKDOWN: DILIJAN, TATEV, TUMANYAN
Dilijan
As Chart 1 and Table 1 (rows 2 and 3) show, compared with 2015 combined budgets of seven pre-consolidated Dilijan settlements, overall, the
share of general services40 and cultural services has not changed in the 2017 budget of consolidated Dilijan. The share of transport, trash
removal, and street lighting has slightly decreased (from 33 to 27 percent), whereas there has been a 12 percent increase in the share of
expenditures on preschool education41.
Chart 1. Break down of pre-consolidation (2015) and post-consolidation (2017) budgets of Dilijan
Post-consolidation Dilijan 2017 Pre-consolidation Dilijan settlements 2015
Preschool Education 30
18
Transport, Trash removal, 27
Street lighting 33
General Services 26
25
Cultural Services, 14
Maintenance of Culture Houses 13
Other 3
11
40
The budget line “General public services” in the budgets of all pre-consolidation settlements and post-consolidation communities has the following specifications:
“Legislative and Executive Bodies, Public Administration, Financial and Tax and Budget Relations, External relations, Other Public Services.”
41
Marzpetaran of Tavush. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Tavush (Functional Classification of Budget Expenditures), 2017, first trimester.
http://tavush.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 3 May 2017); Marzpetaran of Tavush. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of
Tavush (Functional Classification of Budget Expenditures), 2015 Annual Budget. http://tavush.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 8 May 2017)
98
Table 1. Break down of pre-consolidation (2015) and post-consolidation (2017) budgets of Dilijan
Cultural
General Transport, services,
Public Trash removal, Preschool maintenance of
Community Services Street lighting education culture houses Other Total budget
Name AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD
(share in the (share in the (share in the (share in the (share in the
budget) budget) budget) budget) budget)
193,387,793 200,103,907.00 221,486,000.00 99,685,600.00 19,123,874.70 733,787,174.70

Dilijan 2017
(26 percent) (27 percent) (30 percent) (14 percent) (3 percent)
Hovq, Dilijan,
Aghavnavank, 233,231,768.00 309,802,853.00 164,545,771.50 117,270,020.00 100,784,966.30 925,635,378.80
Gosh, Teghut, (25 percent) (33 percent) (18 percent) (13 percent) (11 percent)
Khachardzan,
Haghartzin 2015
Hovq 2015 7,223,422.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,450,600.00 11,674,022.00

(62 percent) (38 percent)
Dilijan 2015 128,806,960.00 304,151,253.00 126,622,444.00 113,694,620.00 8,515,726.90 681,791,003.90

Aghavnavank 5,152,700.00 12,000.00 0,00 60,000.00 6,631,293.00 11,855,993.00

2015 (43 percent) (0.1 percent) (0.5 percent) (56 percent)
99
Gosh 2015 16,883,600.00 980,000.00 0,00 600,000.00 26,038,562.40 44,502,162.40
(38 percent) (2 percent) (1 percent) (59 percent)
Teghut 2015 23,859,800.00 3,600,000.00 10,035,422.00 2,445,400.00 6,123,095.00 46,063,717.00
Khachardzan
2015 8,137,986.00 9,600.00 0,00 70,000.00 11,642,600.00 19,860,186.00
(41 percent) (0.05 percent) (0.4 percent) (59 percent)
Haghartzin 2015 43,167,300.00 1,050,000.00 27,887,905.50 400,000.00 37,383,089.00 109,888,294.50
(39 percent) (1 percent) (25 percent) (0.4 percent) (34 percent)
Tatev
100
As Chart 2 and Table 2 (rows 2 and 3) show, compared with 2015 combined budgets of eight pre-consolidated Tatev settlements, overall, the
share of cultural services, transport, trash removal, street lighting, and preschool education has not changed in the 2017 budget of
consolidated Dilijan. The share of general services has decreased from 77 to 65 percent42.
Chart 2. Break down of pre-consolidation (2015) and post-consolidation (2017) budgets of Tatev
Post-consolidation Tatev 2017 Pre-consolidation Tatev settlements 2015
General Services 65
77
Other 16
8
12
Transport, Trash Removal, 2
Street Lighting 2
Table 2. Break down of pre-consolidation (2015) and post-consolidation (2017) budgets of Tatev
Community General Public Transport, Preschool Cultural Other Total budget
42
Marzpetaran of Syunik. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Syunik (Functional Classification of Budget Expenditures), 2017, first trimester.
http://syunik.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 3 May 2017); Marzpetaran of Syunik. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of
Syunik (Functional Classification of Budget Expenditures), 2015 fourth trimester. http://syunik.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 3 May 2017)
101
name Services Trash education services, AMD
AMD removal, AMD maintenance of (share in the
(share in the Street lighting (share in the culture houses budget)
budget) AMD budget) AMD
(share in the (share in the
budget) budget)
122,792,613.30 3,993,656.00 30,000,000.00 2,600,000.00 30,745,384.00 190,131,653.30

Tatev 2017
Khot, Harjis,
Shinuhayr,
Svarants,
Tatev, 6,368,611.60 41,645,174.00 3,601,000.00 28,079,226.00 356,352,073.40
276,658,061.80 (2 percent) (12 percent) (1 percent) (8 percent)
Tandzatap,
(77 percent)
Tegh,
Qashuni 2015
128,569,721.70 340,000.00 4,509,000.00 2,050,000.00 345,500.00 135,814,221.70
Khot 2015 (95 percent) (0.3 percent) (3 percent) (2 percent) (0.3 percent)
17,218,632.10 0,00 4,690,000.00 0,00 2,308,300.00 24,216,932.10
Harjis 2015 (71 percent) (19 percent) (10 percent)
51,620,000.00 12,758,174.00 12,758,174.00 600,000.00 19,644,900.00 87,790,305.60

Shinuhayr (59 percent) (4 percent) (15 percent) (1 percent) (22 percent)
2015
102
6,099,695.00 0,00 0,00 70,000.00 367,000.00 6,536,695.00
Svarants 2015 (93 percent) (1 percent) (6 percent)
23,741,804.60 861,380.00 0,00 300,000.00 404,526.00 25,307,710.60
Tatev 2015 (94 percent) (3 percent) (1 percent) (2 percent)
4,987,062.00 0,00 0,00 70,000.00 297,500.00 5,354,562.00

Tandzatap
2015 (93 percent) (1 percent) (6 percent)
39,897,583.00 2,000,000.00 19,688,000.00 511,000.00 4,500,000.00 66,596,583.00
Tegh 2015 (60 percent) (3 percent) (29 percent) (1 percent) (7 percent)
4,523,563.40 0,00 0,00 0.00 211,500.00 4,735,063.40
Qashuni 2015 (96 percent) (4 percent)
Tumanyan
As Chart 3 and Table 3 (rows 2 and 3) show, compared with 2015 combined budgets of eight pre-consolidated Tumanyan settlements, there
has been a 10 percent increase in the share of transport, trash removal, and street lighting, as well as 6 percent increase in the share of
103
preschool education in the 2017 budget of consolidated Tumanyan. The share of general services has decreased from 72 to 58 percent. The
share of cultural services and maintenance of culture houses has not changed after consolidation43.
Chart 3. Break down of pre-consolidation (2015) and post-consolidation (2017) budgets of Tumanyan
Post-consolidation Tumanyan 20107 Pre-consolidation Tumanyan settlements 2015
General Services 58
72
11
Transport, Trash Removal, 15
Street Lighting 5
Other 9
11
Table 3. Break down of pre-consolidation (2015) and post-consolidation (2017) budgets of Tumanyan
43
Marzpetaran of Lori. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Lori (Functional Classification of Budget Expenditures), 2017, first trimester.
http://lori.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 2 May 2017); Marzpetaran of Lori. Budget Expenditures of Communities in the Marz of Lori (Functional
Classification of Budget Expenditures), 2015, fourth trimester. http://lori.mtad.am/community-budgetary-expenditure/ (accessed 2 May 2017)
104
General Transport, Trash Cultural services,
Public removal, Street Preschool maintenance of
Community Services lighting education culture houses Other Total budget
name AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD
(share in the (share in the (share in the (share in the (share in the
budget) budget) budget) budget) budget)
Tumanyan
69,576,000.00 17,550,000.00 20,555,000.00 1,120,000.00 11,284,600.00
2017 120,085,600.0
Tumanyan,
Atan,
Ahnidzor,
Lorut, 89,525,100.00 6,312,200.00 14,030,000.00 1,445,000.00 13,556,200.00 124,868,500.00
Shamut, (72 percent) (5 percent) (11 percent) (1 percent) (11 percent)
Qarinj,
Marts 2015
33,896,800.00 4,900,500.00 6,100,000.00 45,000.00 3,656,000.00 48,598,300.00

Tumanyan
2015 (70 percent) (10 percent) (13 percent) (0.1 percent) (8 percent)
6,576,500.00 150,000.00 0,00 130,000.00 955,000.00 7,811,500.00

Atan 2015
5,450,400.00 0,00 0,00 10,000.00 1,533,000.00 6,993,400.00

Ahnidzor
2015 (78 percet) (0.1 percent) (22 percent)
105
Lorut 2015 14,328,100.00 200,000.00 5,380,000.00 450,000.00 1,265,200.00 21,623,300.00
Shamut 2015 5,591,200.00 156,700.00 0,00 70,000.00 1,930,600.00 7,748,500.00
Qarinj 2015 12,297,300.00 600,000.00 2,550,000.00 100,000.00 1,776,700.00 17,324,000.00
Marts 2015 11,384,800.00 305,000.00 0,00 640,000.00 2,439,700.00 14,769,500.00
106
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages
Table 1: The Composition and the Number of Achieved FGDs 11
Table 2: Sample of All Settlements and the Sample Size 13
Table 1.1: Comparison of per capita community budgets before and after 26
Tumanyan consolidation
Table 1.2: Comparison of per capita community budgets before and after Tatev 27
consolidation
Table 1.3: Comparison of per capita community budgets before and after 28
Dilijan consolidation
Table 1.4: The USAID funded activities (and approximate costs) for the 30
consolidated communities of Dilijan, Tatev, and Tumanyan
107
LIST OF FIGURES
Charts Pages
Chart 2.1: Satisfaction with the maintenance of roads in the settlements 33
Chart 2.2: Satisfaction with the maintenance of roads between the 34
settlements in the community
Chart 2.3: Satisfaction with the renovation services for agricultural and road 34
maintenance machinery
Chart 2.4: Satisfaction with garages for agricultural and road renovation 35
machinery
Chart 2.5: Satisfaction with public transportation in the community 35
Chart 2.6: Satisfaction with community bus stops 36
Chart 2.7: Satisfaction with night lighting of the streets of the settlement 36
Chart 2.8: Satisfaction with trash removal and cleanliness in the community 37
Chart 2.9: Satisfaction with the number of trash cans 37
Chart 2.10: Satisfaction with health care services in the settlement 38
Chart 2.11: Satisfaction with the building conditions of kindergartens in the 39
settlements
Chart 2.12: Satisfaction with provision of adequate temperature/ heating in 40
winter
Chart 2.13: Satisfaction with professional qualifications and skills of 40
teachers/ nannies
Chart 2.14: Satisfaction with the quality of art schools 41
Chart 2.15: Satisfaction with the quality of sport schools 41
Chart 3.1: Involvement into the community life 42
Chart 3.2: To what extent can the following factors help the citizens to solve 43
their problems via LSG bodies?
Chart 3.3: Satisfaction with the work of Citizen Service Offices 44
Chart 3.4: How many of those issues were solved by LSGs? 44
Chart 3.5: Encouragement of citizen participation in local council (Avagani) 45
sessions by LSGs
Chart 3.6: Assess the effectiveness of your local council (Avagani) sessions 45
Chart 4.1: Level of trust towards LSGs 48
Chart 4.2: Influence of organizations/ individuals/ groups on decisions of the 49
local council (Avagani)
Chart 4.3: The influence of LSG decisions on community life 49

Chart 4.4: Awareness of LSG activities 50
Chart 5.1: Impact of the community consolidation on communities 52
Chart 5.2: Improvement of intra-community roads during the past 1-2 years 53
Chart 5.3: Likelihood of improvement of PSG services in the coming 3-4 53
years
Chart 5.4: Likelihood of improvement of road renovation services in the 54
coming 3-4 years
108

Are Big Changes Yet To Come?: July 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Are Big Changes Yet To Come?: July 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARE BIG CHANGES YET TO COME?

BASELINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TARA ON

The report was prepared by the CRRC-Armenia Foundation.

Research team members under supervision of Heghine Manasyan:

EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The main findings presented in the report are as follows:

 Overall, per capita budgets in consolidated communities of Dilijan, Tumanyan and

The specific objectives of the evaluation are twofold:

The quantitative evaluation was to address the following basic questions:

See Appendix 3: Analytical Framework for more detailed sub-questions.

The evaluation implemented the following methods:

(i) Desk study;

The desk study of municipal records required interviewing of key informants/experts to

(i) Community leaders (community heads, heads of educational institutions);

Surveying was supplemented by an observation component. The fieldwork supervisors

HOUSEHOLD (HH) SURVEY: SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATIONS, FORMULA

n = [(Zα + Zβ)2 * {P1(1-P1) + P2(1-P2)}/(P2-P1)2] * D * Nf

Settlements Number of HHs % of total N of QQ N of recalculated QQs

1 Dilijan 4572 51 479 429

Total 9031 100 946 946

KNOWN LIMITATIONS TO THE DESIGN

Non-experimental design: The overall survey design is non-experimental pre- and

No prior data on male- and female-headed HHs: It was statistically impossible to

EVALUATION PLANNING AND PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

Detailed work plan for baseline evaluation

Desk Study (February 1 - June 30):

Survey Design/Planning of the Baseline Data Collection (February 15-April 30):

Transcription of the Qualitative Study Audio Records (May 7 – June 14):

Analysis of Transcriptions the FGDs and in-depth/expert interviews (June 1 –

Validation Seminar at the USAID with Stakeholders (August 07 – August 14):

Fieldwork controller’s scope of work was as followed:

 Presentation and overview of the project

Identification of enumeration areas/sampling universe and clusters:

Development and pre-testing of the evaluation instruments:

 Questionnaire for the household survey

Staffing roles and responsibilities:

Ethical issues or incidents:

Issues with interviewers (pre-testers and controllers only):

Interviewer stories and personal experiences (interviewers only):

In summary, the fieldwork staff reported a positive experience. Some mentioned

Daily data transmission:

 Respondents’ social and demographic profile: Survey respondents, FGD

Data analysis methodology:

Data quality limitations and mitigation strategies for data analysis:

Data entry and cleaning:

The rationale behind the current community consolidation process in Armenia is

THE NEW BUDGETS OF DILIJAN, TATEV AND TUMANYAN

Tumanyan 48,598,300 1712 28,387 26,480 -1,907

Atan 7,811,500 265 29,477 26,480 -2,997

Ahnidzor 6,993,400 217 32,228 26,480 -5,748

Lorut 21,623,300 1022 21,158 26,480 +5,322

Shamut 7,748,500 185 41,884 26,480 -15,404

Qarinj 17,324,000 580 29,869 26,480 -3,389

Marts 14,769,500 554 26,660 26,480 -180

http://lori.mtad.am/about-communities/466/ (accessed 2 May 2017)

Tatev 25,307,000 1042 24287 29,956 +5,669

Shinuhayr 87,790,300 2593 33857 29,956 -3,901

Halidzor 13,132,300 602 21814 29,956 +8,142

Harjis 24,216,900 831 29142 29,956 +814

Svarants 6,536,700 360 18158 29,956 +11,798

Khot 135,814,200 890 152600 29,956 -122,644

Tandzatap 5,354,600 103 51986 29,956 -22,030